Is there such a thing as
school quality culture?
Q-KULT Working paper
Jörg Markowitsch
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction
3
2
School culture and quality practices
5
2.1
Modelling the relation between organisational culture,
quality practices and performance
5
2.2
Options to define school quality culture
6
2.3
Evidence on organisational culture and quality practices
8
2.3.1 School culture and quality management
8
2.3.2 Organisational culture and quality management
11
3
What is school culture?
13
3.1
Terminological account
13
3.2
Historical account (to be completed)
14
3.3
Theoretical accounts
14
3.4
Where is culture located?
18
4
Review of organisational culture instruments and instruments to diagnose school cultures
20
4.1.1 School culture surveys
23
5
Lessons to learn for Q-KULT
26
5.1
Eigene Annahmen explizieren!
26
5.2
Den Gegenstand, die Ebene bzw. den Ort der Kultur spezifizieren!
27
5.3
Sich die methodischen Einschränkungen bewusst machen!
27
6
References:
29
7
ANNEXES
39
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
1
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
TABLES
Table 1: Organisational culture dimensions, value frameworks for school quality cultures
and TQM cultures
10
Table 2: School Climate and School Cluture
14
Table 3: Overview on approaches to organise theoretical perspectives on school culture or
organisational culture.
18
Table 4: Common descriptors to categorise instruments exploring organisational culture:
22
Table 5: Overview of school culture survey instruments
24
Table 6: Functions of school culture
44
Table 7: Overview on Instruments to explore school culture
45
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
2
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
1 Introduction
When discussing the implementation of quality management practices in schools and in higher
education, it is frequently claimed that while new systems, procedures and rules are implemented
and much data and many reports are produced, these processes suffer from a lack of staff and
student involvement and a lack of commitment. In short, the complaint is: instruments are in place,
but there is a ‘lack of quality culture’. Successful quality improvement practices seem to require
both the technocratic side (i.e. tools and mechanisms to measure, evaluate, assure and enhance
quality) and a quality conducive culture (European University Association, 2005, p. 18).
Just like a universal pattern, this insight seems to follow the experience of around a decade of
quality management implementation in different education sectors as sure as night follows day. In
European vocational education and training this insight is quite recent (Jonach, Gramlinger, & Hartl,
2012, p. 1093), while in European higher education it already emerged in the mid 2000s (Ehlers,
2009; European University Association, 2007; Harvey & Stensaker, 2008; Newton, 2000; Vidal, 2003)
- apart from an earlier insight by Kells (1995). In the US schooling system, which was the first
adopter of corporate total quality management in education, it appeared already by the end of the
1990ies. Detert, Schroeder, and Cudeck (2003, p. 307) aptly put it as follows: 'Following a decade of
Total Quality Management (TQM) adoption by US corporations, a number of K-12 school administrators began championing the quality paradigm as a model for systemic school improvement in the
late 1980s and early 1990s. […] preliminary systematic research on these early implementation
efforts suggests that QM programs are failing to achieve widespread acceptance and use by those at
the core of schooling —teachers. One tentative explanation for the limited results to date has been
that the existing ‘’culture’‘ of these schools, and that called for by QM, are inconsistent and that
these inconsistencies are at the root of limited implementation.’’.
Also Terhart (2013, p. 487) explains the more general problem of teacher resistance as grounded in
cultural differences between teachers and administrators: ‘’The culture and convictions of educational administrators and reformers and the culture and conviction of teachers in classrooms and
staffrooms really are miles apart’.’ So this insight should not come as a surprise because teacher
resistance against change has not arisen with this ‘new managerialism’, but is a perennial phenomenon which has long been the subject of research and policy (see also Sarason, 1996; Terhart, 2013,
p. 489). Thus, our starting point is not new, and we can draw upon experience from US schools,
European higher education and most notably from organisational research which devoted more
attention to this question than any other research.
The common belief that particular (organisational) cultures or aspects of culture may hinder or
foster the implementation of quality management gains relevance only by at least two important
underlying assumptions. One is that culture can be changed in such a way to facilitate the
implementation of quality management. The other one is that quality management in schools has
positive effects on school performance, e.g. in terms of student achievements. However, these
assumptions are heavily contested and empirical evidence is scarce. Thus, to ground this work on a
sound basis, both a comprehensive model of change that is able to explain how change can be
implemented in highly institutionalised organisations dominated by professionals (Detert & Pollock,
2008) and unambiguous empirical evidence from impact studies of quality management (Sousa &
Voss, 2002) would be needed; both goes beyond the scope of this paper. We content ourselves with
exploring the relationship between school culture, quality management practices and performance
(with less emphasis on the latter) and with the attempt to identify appropriate methods to diagnose
school culture. Hence, this paper is organised around three guiding questions:
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
3
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
1.
What do we know about the relation between school culture and quality management and how
can this relation be modelled? This also includes questions such as: What are the basic models
and main theories used to describe this relation? Is there such a thing as ‘school quality
culture’ and if so, how is it defined?
2.
Which instruments to diagnose school culture are available and how can they be characterised?
Which culture model and theories are they based on? What experiences have been made with
these instruments?
3.
Which parameters or guidelines for a self-evaluation tool to diagnose school culture in an
international setting can be derived from the answers to question 1 and 2? This part is not
intended for publication. As it addresses mainly the Q-KULT project partnership, it is written in
German.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
4
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
2 School culture and quality practices
2.1 Modelling the relation between organisational culture, quality practices
and performance
The initial idea that there is an important relationship between cultural aspects of an organisation
and the ability to successfully implement quality management as well as their underlying
assumptions can be modelled quite easily. Also the distinction between the ’technocratic’ and the
‘cultural’ side can be integrated without becoming too complex. Literature on quality management
provides ample evidence of comparable differentiations of quality management practices speaking
of ‘core’ (technical) and ‘infrastructure’ (behavioral) aspects 1 (Flynn, Schroeder, & Sakakibara,
1995; Sousa & Voss, 2002). Although many authors (e.g. Dean & Bowen, 1994; Sitkin, Sutcliffe, &
Schroeder, 1994; Spencer, 1994) defend the integration of ‘core’ and ‘infrastructure’ QM aspects
and although there are consistent empirical results (of Flynn et al. (1995); Anderson,
Rungtusanatham, and Schroeder (1994) other studies have raised doubts about the contribution of
core practices to performance, suggesting that infrastructure practices can produce performance
even without the core practices (Dow, Samson, & Ford, 1999; Powell, 1995; Samson & Terziovski,
1999; quoted by Sousa & Voss, 2002).
Taking this distinction between core (or hard) and infrastructure (or soft) aspects into account, it is
possible to model the relationship between organisational culture, quality practices and
performance as sketched in Diagram 1. Following this model a direct influence of school culture on
performance (H5) or an influence moderated via QM core practices (H1+H2) or via QM infrastructure
practices (H3+H4) or both is possible. For sure, these relations (H1 to H4) can also be independent
(e.g. school culture influencing QM practices without further effect on school performance). Finally,
QM practices can have a mediating effect on H5.
1
Examples for infrastructure aspects are: management commitment and support, internal cooperation, employee
involvement, empowerment and training, customer involvement. Examples for core aspects are: benchmarking, process
management, quality data and reporting.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
5
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Diagram 1: Modeling the relation between organisational culture, quality practices and
performance
QM practices
‚Core‘/
H1
H2
technical
School
School
H5
Culture
Performance
H3
QM practices
H4
‚infrastructure‘/behavio
ral
School Quality Culture?
Source: Authors, (compare also Naor, Goldstein, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2008)
This could serve as simple version of a functional model of school culture, quality management and
performance which starts to become complicated once we try to locate quality culture in this
diagram, and start asking about the definition of culture and the potential relation between
(organisational) school culture and school quality culture. For example, the European University
Association (2005) defines quality culture as composed of the two quality management elements,
quality management (technology) and quality commitment (culture). In their nomenclature this is at
least partly a vicious circle, as they describe commitment as the cultural aspects of quality culture.
To solve this contradiction one could restrict quality culture to the behavioral elements of quality
management practices. But this solution would produce more problems than it solves, because one
would have to argue that some artifacts (e.g. feedback questionnaires, an evaluation data system
etc.) do not form part of the culture. In this way organisational culture research in education seems
to perpetuate a problem from general organisational research, namely the imperfect boundaries
between quality management as a set of management practices or as an organisational culture. Is
quality management a set of practices, or, is it a specific type of culture, or both? (Prajogo &
McDermott, 2005, p. 1104).
2.2 Options to define school quality culture
Let us now turn to the most crucial question the possible answers to which transform the above
model into something quite elaborated. How do school culture (SQ) and school quality culture (QC)
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
6
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
relate? Quality can be (and has been) interpreted in at least four fundamental ways (see also
Diagram 4 in the Annex)2:
1.
Quality culture is composed of elements or dimensions (of the broader environment) of
organisational culture which are decisive for the implementation or practice of QM. In this
case, quality culture can be identified as part of the organisational culture. It is sort of a
thematic subculture, such as management culture (e.g. Ackeren, Block, Kullmann, & Klemm,
2008; Ehlers, 2008). (QC ⊆ SC)
2.
Quality culture may share some elements or dimension of school culture, but may also have
some different key values not covered in common organisational culture concepts. Detert,
Seashore Louis, and Schroeder (2001) (also in Detert et al., 2003) gives the example of
customer orientation (see also Powell, 1995; Schein, 2010/1985; Zeitz, Johannesson, & Ritchie,
1997). (QC ≈ SC).
3.
Quality culture is identical with organisational culture and just used as another term for it. In
this case there is no such thing as quality culture. (QC = OC)
4.
Quality culture is a genuine construct different from organisational culture. In this case quality
culture cannot be described based on models of organisational culture. (QC ≠ OC)
For sure the conceptual approach to understand the relation between organisational culture and
quality culture could be simplified by denying that there is such a thing as quality culture and by
preferring option 3 above. However, in doing so we would also have to deny that not only school
administrators, but also practitioners in schools speak about quality culture. And they do this in a
way which leaves little doubt that there is something like quality culture distinct from school
culture. As regards the fourth option it is hard to say whether it would simplify the analysis or
complicate it. One could argue that, on the one hand, there is nothing to compare, because of their
different nature and entity; on the other hand, one could consider exactly this an interesting
situation which is worth being further explored.
Whatever approach is taken we have to admit that they are still an oversimplification; we should
thus at least consider the following extensions:
1.
The relationship is one-dimensional, illustrated at the horizontal level of culture in terms of a
value framework. It does not take into consideration the potential vertical or deep structure of
culture (be it a three-level structure as suggested by Schein (1990), a four-level structure by
Hofstede (2010/1991), a five-level structure by Morgan, Gregory, and Roach (1997)). For each
level the above relations would have to be described and discussed. For an example of a
combined model see Schoen and Teddlie (2008).
2.
Even if we restrict our model to values and try to compare value frameworks of organisational
culture with value frameworks of quality management we should distinguish between ‘espoused
values’ as opposed to ‘values in-use’.
3.
For reasons of simplification we have assumed a direct impact or an impact mediated or
moderated by quality management on school performance. Actually, we would have to
introduce service and/or process quality as an additional element in the model.
4.
It is not just the definition of quality culture which is in question, but the definition of culture
as such. Depending on which model or theory is applied to define culture, the options to use
and interpret the above model will multiply. However, some theoretical perspective may deny
2
We conceive these ‘set relations’ as conceptual, but it may also help to interpret them linguistically as hypernym,
synonym, and polysem.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
7
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
the possibility of a functional model per se. (We will address the theoretical foundations of
school culture in Chapter 3).
5. Finally, we have not questioned the causal relationship, assuming that school culture influences
the implementation of quality management in one or the other way. However, one can also
argue that the introduction of quality management affects the organisational culture (compare
Diagram 2 in the Annex). There are a few authors following this track (e.g. Kotter & Heskett,
1992; Lam, Poon, & Chin, 2008; Lewis, 1996). Although the ‘culture antecedes quality
management’ perspective is more prominent, these examples show that we actually have to
take the reciprocal relationships between the implementation of quality management and
organisational culture into account (Zu, Robbins, & Fredendall, 2010, p. 100). This, however,
would call for longitudinal studies which are indeed are rare.
An attempt to illustrate some aspects of such an extended model can be found in the Annex of this
paper (see Diagram 3). In the next section we briefly review empirical studies which contribute to
an understanding of the complex relationship between organisational and quality culture in one or
the other way. The focus on empirical evidence should not undermine the serious conceptual efforts
which have been undertaken to arrive at a clear concept of quality culture. For example for higher
education (Ehlers, 2008, 2009; G. Gordon, 2002; Harvey, 2009; Harvey & Stensaker, 2008; Kells,
1995; Lomas, 1999; Loukkola & Zhang, 2010; Milisiunaite, Adomaitiene, & Galginaitis, 2009;
Stamatelos & Stamatelos, 2009; Yorke, 2000; Zulu, Murray, & Strydom, 2004), for vocational
education (Ittner & Kurz, 2012; Jonach et al., 2012) or education in general (Detert, Schroeder, &
Mauriel, 2000; Detert et al., 2001; Svensson & Klefsjo, 2010).
2.3 Evidence on organisational culture and quality practices
2.3.1 School culture and quality management
There are number of studies which investigate the relation of school culture to various performance
or outcome aspects, e.g. on teacher organisational commitment and well-being (Zhu, Devos, & Li,
2011), student achievement (Heck & Marcoulides, 1996; Le Clear, 2005; MacNeil, Prater, & Busch,
2009; Smith, 2006; Van der Westhuizen, Mosoge, Swanepoel, & Coetsee, 2005), misbehaviour of
students (Eder & Dämon, 2010); and a number of studies scrutinising the relation between school
culture and leadership (Le Clear, 2005; Louis & Wahlstrom, 2011; Milton, 2011). However, for many
of these studies it remains unclear whether they are measuring school culture or school climate (see
below). Studies which deliberately distinguish between culture and climate are rare (e.g. Eder
2010).
Studies which in particular address the relation between culture and quality culture or practices in
educational settings are extremely scarce. Some use the notion of ‘quality culture’ or ‘feedback
culture’ and are empirical, but do neither define nor operationalise culture and are therefore not
able to address any relations (e.g. Svensson & Klefsjo, 2010) There are also interesting case studies
on the relevance of culture for implementing quality management, which provide useful hints, but
can hardly be generalised. For example, J. Davies, Douglas, and Douglas (2007) concluded from four
case studies that the ideal mix of cultural factors to facilitate effective implementation of the
EFQM in UK universities includes ‘an emphasis on teamwork rather than individualism’, appealing to
the self-improvement aspect of the professionalism of academic staff as an aid to implementation;
and a supportive environment. All this is little surprising and actually more interesting is what they
did not find, namely an effect of tailoring the language and terminology of the EFQM or the
appropriate management style as claimed by others (Kells, 1995).
Finally there is no empirical study in the area of vocational education and training dealing with
organisational culture and quality culture. One study which comes close to this issue investigated
the empirical linkage between organisational learning and TQM culture (Lam et al., 2008). Given
the overlap between organisational learning and strong school cultures (Leithwood & Louis, 1998),
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
8
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
the results seem to be transferrable to school culture. However, this study actually turns the
argument around: it identified shared visions, long term focus and teacher involvement as the three
key quality culture enablers of organisational learning. Even more disappointing is the fact that it
does not become clear in which way the results may differ in vocational education from other types
of education. Even more than in primary education and general secondary education, we can expect
strong subcultures in vocational education. In almost all countries with a respectable VET system we
will find strong differences between vocational subjects (often locally segregated), such as
technology, commerce or social work imposed by the respective professional communities from
which teachers come or to which they are linked. But even in the same VET school we are often
aware of an invisible curtain between the teachers of general subjects and those of vocational or
technical subjects (often determined by differences in teacher education or access to the teaching
profession). Finally, cultural differences between teachers of practical subjects (often practitioners
without much pedagogical training) and academics can be expected in VET (on the topic of
subcultures see also Chapter 3.2).
The works of James Detert (Detert & Pollock, 2008; Detert et al., 2003; Detert et al., 2000; Detert
et al., 2001) form one big exception to these scarce contributions. They provide the most
systematic and prolific research on the relation of organisational culture and quality management in
schools. We therefore focus on these contributions, before we turn to other educational areas and
studies which deal with the relation of organisational culture and quality management in corporate
settings.
In an early collaboration, Detert and Schroeder (Detert et al., 2000) performed a qualitative
content analysis of literature reaching over two decades to identify the specific dimensions of
organisational culture actually used by researchers in surveys and in literature and arrived at eight
dimensions (see Table 1). Next they scanned the TQM literature and used an expert panel to
determine the normative dimensions that have been used to define the ideal culture of a TQM
organisation. Finally, they discussed each of the cultural dimensions with the TQM values. In
subsequent work they developed this into a value framework for quality culture in schools defining
nine quality values for schools (as well as their opposites, see Table 1) (Detert et al., 2001). Finally,
they developed this into a survey instrument to measure quality management culture in schools
(Detert et al., 2003) which seems to be until now the only attempt to measure ‘school quality
(management) culture’. The idea of the ‘School Quality Management Culture Survey’ (SQMCS) was
to help schools to evaluate their cultural alignment with quality management concepts and
practices. While applying a broad concept of culture comprising values, beliefs, norms and symbols,
they are well aware of the limitations of their survey methodology and propose supplemental
measurement approaches to arrive at a more comprehensive picture. The SQMCS does not attempt
to measure symbols and artefacts nor can it distinguish desired from actual beliefs. Detert’s work is
not only relevant for our purpose because it provides a validated survey instrument to assess school
quality culture, it is also remarkable for many other aspects, some of which we briefly refer to.
According to Detert et al. (2003) there are two types of studies on organisational culture and quality
management. The first type of studies are those that claim to be exploring quality management and
its culture, yet deal almost exclusively in the realm of quality management practices (among others
they refer to Anderson et al., 1994; Flynn, Schroeder, & Sakakibara, 1994; Marcoulides & Heck,
1993; Morrow, 1997; Reynolds, 1986; Tata & Prasad, 1998). These studies are criticised for being
tautological as the implicit argument is ‘organisations do practice X because their culture is to
practice X’ (Detert et al., 2003, p. 309). In case these studies define a quality culture they are of
type 3 (QC = OC). The second type of studies measure organisational culture (mostly using existing
frameworks and survey instruments) and relate these to quality management implementation
(among others referring to Al-khalifa & Aspinwall, 2000; Kim S. Cameron & Freeman, 1991; Chang,
1996; Klein, Masi, & Weidner, 1995; Rigsby, 1995; Yeung, Brockbank, & Ulrich, 1991). Although
these studies provide useful information about certain aspects of culture and their relation to
quality management implementation, Detert et al. claim that they are bound by the aspects of
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
9
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
culture covered by the instrument (Detert et al., 2000; Detert et al., 2001). An approach we
described by type 1 (QC ⊆ SC). Detert’s own approach can be described by type 2 (QC ≈ SC).
Table 1: Organisational culture dimensions, value frameworks for school quality cultures and
TQM cultures
Organisational culture
dimension
(Detert et al., 2000, p.
885)
1. The basis of truth and
rationality in the
organisation
2. The nature if time and
time horizon
3. Motivation
4. Stability vs.
change/innovation/pe
rsonal growth
5. Orientation to work,
tasks, and co-workers
6. Isolation vs.
collaboration/coopera
tion
7. Control, coordination,
and responsibility
8. Orientation and focus
– internal and/or
external
Value Framework for QM
Cultures in Schools
(Detert et al., 2001, p.
1991ff.)
1. A shared vision and
shared goals among faculty,
staff and administrators are
critical for school success
2. Educational needs should
be determined primarily by
parents, community groups,
students, and other
stakeholders
3. Improving education
requires a long-term
commitment.
4. A school should strive to
make continuous changes to
improve education.
5. Teachers should be
active in improving the
overall school operation.
6. Collaboration is
necessary for an effective
school.
7. Decision making should
rely on factual information
8. Quality problems are
caused by poor system and
processes, not by teachers
9. Quality can be improved
with the existing resources.
Values of TQM3
(Lagrosen,
2003, p. 475)
1. Measurement
focus
2. Business
process focus
3. Continuous
improvements
4. Full
participation
5. Leadership
commitment
6. Customer
orientation
Channels that facilitate
a TQM Culture
(Gallear & Ghobadian,
2004, p. 1051)
1. Leadership and vision
from the top (4.96)
2. Teamwork (4.74)
3. Active and visible
participation of top
management (4.74)
4. commitment to and
promotion of the TQM
concept by the Chief
Executive to all levels
of the organisation
(4.68)
5. involvement and
commitment from all
employees (4.6)
6. all employees
dedicated to
continuous
(process/working
practice)
improvement (4.57)
Source: See references in the first row.
Apart from the work of Detert and colleagues we only found one quantitative study in education
which deals with organisational culture and quality. Trivellas and Dargenidou (2009) examined the
influence of organisational culture on the quality of services in higher education (see ‘H5’ in the
model in Annex) based on a survey among faculty and administration members. They use the
Competing Values Framework (Kim S. Cameron & Freeman, 1991) to operationalise organisational
culture and quality dimensions in higher education as proposed by Owlia and Aspinwall (1996) and
Waugh (2002) as a measure of administration quality. They found that adhocracy cultures which
3
Prajogo and McDermott (2005, p. 1103) acknowledge three core elements as common grounds of TQM: customer focus,
continuous improvement, and total involvement.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
10
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
stress entrepreneurship, creativity, pro-activeness and innovativeness in discovering new markets
and which is characterised by flexibility, adaptability and external orientation are conducive to
enhancing the quality of teaching and administration. However, we do not know whether quality
management plays a role in this game.
2.3.2 Organisational culture and quality management
If one leaves the educational setting and includes studies from other fields which explore the
relation between organisational culture and quality culture there is quite a selection of works which
could be reviewed. Just as in educational research, most of the empirical studies in the field of
organisational research are on organisational culture and performance (e.g. Flynn et al., 1994; G.
G. Gordon & DiTomaso, 1992; Samson & Terziovski, 1999; Scott, Mannion, Marshall, & Davies, 2003;
Wilderom, Glunk, & Maslowski, 2000; Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983)4. There is also substantial work on
organisational culture and quality outcomes (e.g. L. M. Corbett & Rastrick, 2000; H. Davies, Nutley,
& Mannion, 2000; Gifford, Zammuto, & Goodman, 2002; Goodman, Zammuto, & Gifford, 2001).
Although there is less empirical research on the relation of quality management and organisational
culture, it is still very remarkable in comparison to what we found in education. In particular in the
last decade there were a number of studies which all investigated TQM and organisational culture in
various settings (construction, manufacturing, hospitals) with quite similar methods, for example:
(Gallear and Ghobadian (2004); Haffar, Al-Karaghouli, and Ghoneim (2013); Irani, Beskese, and Love
(2004); Klein et al. (1995); Lagrosen (2003); Lewis (1996); Prajogo and McDermott (2005); Rad
(2006); Yong and Pheng (2008); Zeitz et al. (1997); Zu et al. (2010)). All of them were published in
journals of operation management or quality management.
Two of the earlier articles are particularly interesting because they introduce new conceptual
approaches to the topic. Gallear and Ghobadian (2004, p. 1044) take up Maull, Brown, and Cliffe
(2001) point that there are at least four views of culture in the organisational culture literature: as
a learned entity, as a belief system, as a strategy, and as a mental programming. For each view
they arrive at four ways of overlapping between the concept of organisational culture and TQM (see
Diagram 5 in Annex and compare this view with our restriction regarding the different conceptions
of culture in our functional model). First, TQM is a tool for both changing and forming organisational
culture. Next, TQM has its own set of values that relate to values of organisational culture. Finally,
it is also a tool for changing the values of an organisation towards the direction of TQM values.
Although TQM has a separate origin from culture research, the two fields have converged.
Gallear and Ghobadian (2004) go on by systematically examining the conditions (‘channels’) that
influence, mould and sustain a desirable cultural orientation required for total quality management.
They do so by applying a Delphi approach to around fifty benchmark organisations recognised as
leading exponents of TQM, which finally rated a list of fifteen statements using a five-point Likert
scale. Three of the six necessary conditions (compare Table 1) rated as very important are related
to the top management of the organisations. Furthermore the concept of ‘commitment’ featured
three times within the top six. Hence, their overall conclusion is little surprising, which is: the focus
should be first on providing leadership and vision from the top management, ensuring active and
visible participation of top management and second on the mobilisation of all employees around the
goal of continuous improvement and enlisting their active commitment and involvement (Gallear &
Ghobadian, 2004, p. 1059).
Prajogo and McDermott (2005) also explore the relationship between TQM practices and
organisational culture with the purpose of identifying the particular culture that determines the
successful implementation of TQM. Their starting point is the appraisal that there are two
4
For a recent review see Sackmann (2011).
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
11
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
competing schools of thoughts. The first (‘unitarist’) view argues that TQM is associated with a
single ‘homogenous’ culture (one that is flexible and people-oriented). The second (‘pluralist’) view
supports the idea of heterogeneity of various cultural dimensions on which TQM should build
(different cultural characteristics are associated with different elements of TQM). Accordingly, the
unitarists view TQM as a uni-dimensional ‘package’ which has to be implemented as a whole, the
pluralists suggest that TQM practice is multidimensional.
Based on a survey of around 200 managers and applying the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award (MBNQA) criteria to measure TQM and the competing values framework (Denison & Spreitzer,
1991) to measure organisational culture- they conclude that the pluralist model is superior. In both
models ‘group culture’, followed by ‘developmental culture’ turned out to be the most dominant
one and in congruence with previous literature. However, they also found that combined with group
culture mechanistic or hierarchical-type cultural elements correlate with TQM practices and hence
a coexistence of control and people-centered elements. This implies that quality management calls
for a balance of these antagonistic elements within an organisation. Together with Thompson (1999)
they conclude that managing the cultural paradox could be one of the primary issues of QM and the
biggest challenge for organisations that implement it.
By using data from about 200 plants from six countries and also applying the competing values
framework, Naor et al. (2008) tested the influence of organisational culture on core (technical)
quality management practices vs. infrastructure (behavioral) quality management practices. They
found a stronger influence for the latter. Furthermore, infrastructure quality management practices
have a significant effect on manufacturing performance. Thus, their results emphasise the
importance of the soft people-oriented quality practices in developing a competitive advantage
(Powell, 1995). Even more interesting, their findings indicate that infrastructure quality practices
do not affect the core quality practices and can enhance performance without their presence (Naor
et al., 2008, p. 694).
Baird, Hu, and Reeve (2011) found that the cultural dimension teamwork/respect for people is the
most important factor in enhancing the use of TQM practices which they measured using Kaynak
(2003) four core TQM practices (quality data and reporting, supplier quality management,
product/service design, process management). Zu et al. (2010) build on Prajogo and McDermott
(2005) also using the competing values framework by expanding the TQM practices to include the Six
Sigma practices. They confirm previous findings that group culture with its emphasis on
commitment and cooperation is the most dominant cultural type for overall TQM/Six Sigma
implementation. They find weaker influence for developmental and rational culture and no
influence for hierarchical culture, and go on supporting Prajogo’s view that flexibility- and peopleoriented culture values have to be combined with control and external-oriented values. Haffar et
al. (2013), for the time being, has been the last in this list of researchers who empirically examined
the organisational culture and quality management link. He as well used the competing values
framework with a focus on the mediating role of individual readiness for change.
Finally Green (2012) offers a welcome change to this series of rather similar quantitative
contributions, by conceptually trying to identify the particular ‘cultural traits’ which are conducive
to TQM success in four different models of organisational culture. They deliberately selected four
disparate models. For each of the models they tried to ‘locate’ which part in particular provides a
conducive environment for TQM. With the exception of Irani (2002), which build on a case study,
and Green (which is purely literature based) all studies are quantitative, they all use rather similar
methods, mainly applying a typological approach to culture. Besides Lagrosen (2002) who examines
the influence of national culture on implementing TQM in an organisation all studies focus on
organisational culture.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
12
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
3 What is school culture?
We cannot not provide a full review of school culture research here as this would require more than
just a paper section. While early reviews such as Firestone and Louis (1999) or Prosser (1999) with a
focus on the UK were able to capture the topic in a longer book chapter, it meanwhile would
require a whole book. In our literature which has been conducted with much care, but in two
languages (English and German) only, we identified around 240 academic publications contributing
to school culture. What we offer here instead is a discussion of tools and concepts which are able to
structure the growing body of research on school culture. We do so by addressing the terminological
aspects involved, in particular the debate on culture vs. climate, by offering a historical view on the
scholarly debates, and by describing the various approaches to structure the theories used to
analyse school culture.
3.1 Terminological account
There is a profusion of meaning of school culture (Prosser, 1999), and there are a number of similar
terms such as climate, ethos, atmosphere, character or tone, used to describe what is often
assumed to be a common phenomenon that needs little explanation. Some of the literature on
school culture even reads as if the term was used as a residual category to subsume everything
which cannot be clearly explained or measured. However, neither the fact that many researchers
use implicit definitions of the term, nor the number of actual definitions provided is surprising: see
for example Prosser (1999, p. 8), Schoen and Teddlie (2008, p. 132 f.), or Martin (2002, p. 57 f.).
Culture is an ‘essentially contested concept’ (for a discussion see Collier, Daniel Hidalgo, & Olivia
Maciuceanu, 2006; for the original see Gallie, 1955) which inevitably involves endless disputes about
their uses and meaning. This does not change with adding a prefix like ‘school’ or ‘organisational’.
Prosser (1999, p. 9) concludes that ‘since definitions of school culture are so general and all
encompassing they are of limited worth and convey little in terms of meanings attributed’.
However, this does not relieve researchers from clarifying its meaning within the context of use.
The most intense terminological debate in this respect was unquestionably the one on climate and
culture. Denison stated that the boundaries between climate and culture are ambiguous (Denison,
1996). He is concerned about the appearance of a number of articles (early 1990ies) which all apply
quantitative research methods to the study of culture and he observes a reappearance of the older
and at that time neglected tradition of organisational climate. Also according to Firestone and Louis
(1999, p. 298) the distinction between culture and climate became even less clear as researchers
began using surveys and experimental methods to study culture.
With the usual delay of a decade, the debate on climate vs. culture has also entered school
research. School climate is definitely the older term, probably first applied to schools by Pace and
Stern (1958). Halpin and Croft (1962) finally borrowed the term from organisational researcher
Argyris (1958) and transported it to the educational setting (Prosser 1999, p. 6; van Houtte 2005, p.
72). Climate is used by school effectiveness researchers, the preferred term of quantitative
researchers and typically viewed from a psychological perspective, while culture and related terms
are used by school improvement, more qualitative oriented researchers from an anthropological
perspective (Prosser 1999, p. 6., Schoen and Teddlie 2008, p. 133, Hoy et.al 1991). In the 1960ies,
the emphasis was on the measurement of school climate (for a review see Freiberg & Stein, 1999).
The culture concept was (re-)discovered by school research at the end of the 1980ies and beginning
of 1990ies following an extensive decade of research on organisational culture which also had a
number of quite popular publications (e.g. Hofstede, 2010/1991; Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985; Schein,
2010/1985).
Van Houtte (2005, p. 75) who presents a detailed discussion of the concepts of climate and culture
argues that the main difference is that climate is usually seen in terms of shared perceptions, while
culture is seen in terms of shared meanings and shares beliefs. Problems arise if climate is not seen
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
13
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
as an individual feature, but as organisational feature because aggregation is required and prone to
error. Various studies pretend to research organisational climate, but are in fact an examination of
individual perception of climate. Interestingly, also culture is mostly addressed through individual
perceptions when trying to be measured although this is not a methodological necessity. Discussing
the various pros and cons of the concepts, Van Houtte (2005, p. 84) comes to the conclusion that
the term culture is better suited than climate if one wants to gain insight into what members of an
organisation assume, believe, think. Climate entails the total environmental quality and is broader
than culture and as multidimensional construct encompasses culture. Her main argument is that in
contrast to climate it is clear how cultures originate and may influence individual members of
organisations (an aspect Denison 1996, p. 621 attributes to climate!). Schoen and Teddlie (2008)
agree to van Houtte’s general conclusion to prefer culture, however in contrast to van Houtte they
propose to think of climate as a subset of the broader construct of culture. Applying Schein’s theory
to the school context seems to fit the idea that school culture and school climate are component
parts of the same construct (School climate corresponding to espoused beliefs and school culture to
basic assumptions, Schoen and Teddlie, p. 138f). They finally present a new integrated model of
school culture comprising four dimensions that exist at Schein’s three levels of abstraction:
Professional orientation, organisational structure, learning environment, student-centred focus.
Table 2: School Climate and School Cluture
Climate
Definitions
Substantial overlapping
Disciplinary focus
Theoretical foundations
psychological
anthropological
Field theory of Kurt Lewin
Symbolic interaction and social
constructivism
Shared perceptions
Shared assumptions
Originally quantitative, now high
overlap
Originally qualitative, now high
overlap
Focus
Dominating
approach
Culture
methodological
Content & Substance
(Variables and dimensions
used)
High overlap
Consistency / Congruence of
findings
High resemblance
Source: Author, ideas taken from (Hoy (2011); Maxwell and Thomas (1991); Prosser (1999); Schoen
and Teddlie (2008)). For a more comprehensive overview in organisational research see
Denison (1996, p. 625)
3.2 Historical account (to be completed)
See (Maslowski, 2005, p. 6) (Pol, Hlouskova, Novotny, Vaclavikova, & Zounek, 2005, pp. 149-150)
(Cheng, 1993, pp. 86-88) (Göhlich, 2007)
3.3 Theoretical accounts
The most recent review of school culture research we came across (Pol et al., 2005), offers a
typology to structure the various studies, however it does so only by referring to their purpose, not
taking into account their theoretical conceptions. In this respect earlier works are more fruitful.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
14
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Firestone and Louis’ contribution to the Handbook of research on educational administration
(Firestone & Louis, 1999) provides the first comprehensive account of school culture research
reviewing extensive literature from various contributing fields such as anthropology, sociology,
educational science, and organisational research. Their article until today serves as probably the
best introduction to the topic.
They contend that the conception of school culture mainly came from organisational research and
stayed close to the functionalist traditions 5 which has had three effects on the conception of school
culture: ‘First, they have taken insufficient advantage of the interpretive turn in social theory
generally and not attended to theories using ‘codes’ to explain how culture works. Second, they
have not adequately examined the role of culture in conflict or how culture is constructed. Finally
culture has stayed a holistic concept and researchers have not attended to the interplay of national,
organisational, subgroup, or other cultures’ (Firestone & Louis, 1999, p. 298). The reason why
research on organisational culture has focussed too exclusively on values and has paid too little
attention to linguistic and behavioural codes can be traced back to the fact that Schein, Denison
and others equate culture with ‘values’ (Firestone & Louis, 1999, p. 299). According to Firestone
and Louis, this hides what is interesting about cultures in other research communities and they refer
to Hatch (1993) and Smircich (1983) as researchers questioning the functionalist and causal
paradigms taking a more phenomenological view on organisations borrowing from sociology and
anthropology. This ‘interpretive turn’ both opened up new methodological directions (including
ethnography and semiotics) and an alternative explanation of behaviour that de-emphasises values.
By taking the emphasis on values or codes as one dimension and borrowing a concept of Swidler
(1986) who distinguishes between cultures that develop under settled and unsettled circumstances
as a second dimension they introduce a four field matrix to organise theories about cultures.
However, they finally do not apply this typology to extant school culture research and hence, it is
difficult to see whether this typology could be really helpful to structure theories on school culture.
An explicit typology of school culture theories is provided by Tsang (2009) who distinguished three
approaches, 1) a typology-functionalist approach, 2) a process approach, and 3) an improvementeffectiveness approach, arguing strongly for the latter. The typological-functional view is based on
functionalism and believes that school culture is contributory to school functioning, follows a
holistic conception of school culture and does not acknowledge sub-cultures. It tends to be
descriptive and is regarded as rather static. As proponent of this view D. Hargreaves (1995) is
mentioned. The process approach focuses upon the mechanisms by which school culture is
developed, it regards school culture as dynamic and in continuous interaction with external
environments. There are two different theoretical camps representing this approach: symbolic
interactionists emphasising the interpersonal interaction in schools trying to decode the symbolic
side of organisations. In contrast, conflict theorists emphasise the conflict between dominant
groups (e.g. teachers) and subordinate groups (e.g. students). Proponents quoted for the earlier
include Maxwell and Thomas (1991), for the latter Erickson (1987). Finally, there is an
improvement-effectiveness approach, which Tsang is in favour of, and which is based on
functionalism and interactionism and which can be traced back to the movement of integrating
school effectiveness and school improvement research. This approach which in a way is mediating
the two others claims that school culture is diverse and dynamic and does not take a holistic view.
School culture comprises different cultural elements and has both positive and negative functions to
schools (Cavanagh & Dellar, 1996, 1997, 1998). Although Tsang’s categories provide a useful
approach to structure theoretical accounts of school culture, they can be criticised for not being
sufficiently disjunct. In practice the improvement-effectiveness approach is difficult to distinguish
from the others.
5
For an example of functions of school culture see Table 6 in the Annex.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
15
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
A problem Müthing (2010) overcomes when simply distinguishing between normative and descriptive
theories of school culture. Examples of the first are to be found in terms of ‘Schulgestaltung’ (e.g.
Terhart, 1994), as indicators for school quality (e.g. Fend, 1995) or as overlapping of learning
culture, organisational culture and education culture (Holtappels, 2003). Examples of the latter
include school culture as pedagogical culture of the individual school (Werner Helsper, 2008) or as
construct of norms and values (Deal & Peterson, 1999). An integration of normative and descriptive
approaches she claims to have found in Schoen and Teddlie (2008) comprehensive model of school
culture. However, Schoen and Teddlie (2008) only present a model which combines Schein’s vertical
levels with horizontal (content-related) levels of organisational culture and do not really develop a
new theoretical perspective. Hence, one has to question both if the distinction between normative
and descriptive holds true for the authors in question (in particular Terhart provides rather critical
perspectives reflecting on normative approaches) and if the author has mistaken cultural models for
theoretical perspectives. Also Göhlich (2007) would have to dissent as he, despite theoretical and
methodological differences, subsumes Terhart (1994), Fend (1995), Werner Helsper, Böhme,
Kramer, and Lingkost (1998) and his own works all under a culture-oriented approach which he
distinguishes from a micro-political approach (Altrichter & Salzgeber, 2000) and an organisational
theory approach (Dalin, 1993). What is remarkable in the German discourse on school culture (e.g.
Duncker, 1995; Fend, 1995; Göhlich, 2007; Werner Helsper, 2000; W. Helsper, 2010; Holtappels,
1995, 2003; Keuffer, Krüger, Reinhardt, Weise, & Wenzel, 1998; Keuffer & Trautmann, 2010;
Kluchert, 2009; Terhart, 1994) is that it largely, if not fully ignores the international discourse.
Misleading assessments, e.g. such as dominating qualitative methods in school culture research
(Göhlich, 2007, p. 119), can be seen a consequence of this ignorance.
Finally, the most fruitful approach to structure studies about school culture we found outside school
culture research. Joanne Martin (based on Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1995; Martin &
Meyerson, 1988; Meyerson & Martin, 1987) in 2002 provided an attempt to map the terrain of
cultural research by which offers a number of helpful concepts and categories to structure the vast
body of organisation research. These concepts can be applied to school culture research as well,
which has not yet been done systematically (Martin, 2002).
In terms of theoretical views of cultures in organisations she distinguishes three perspectives:
Integration, differentiation, and fragmentation (Martin, 2002, p. 100ff.). The integrations
perspective focuses on those manifestations of a culture that have mutually consistent
interpretations (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Denison, 1990; Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985; Schein, 1990). The
differentiation perspective focuses on manifestations of culture that have inconsistent
interpretations. From this perspective consensus exists within an organisation, but only at the lower
levels of subculture (Alvesson, 1993a; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Finally the fragmentation perspective
conceptualises the relations among cultural manifestations as neither clearly consistent nor as
inconsistent, placing ambiguity at the core of culture (Alvesson, 1993b; Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989). Most of the empirical studies of cultures in organisation adopt one of these perspectives,
while Martin advocates a three-perspective theory of culture.
Instead of summarising this approach here we continue by introducing two other typologies by
Martin which we deem helpful in categorising studies about school culture. The level of analysis,
which can be organisational, subcultural or individual (Martin, 2002, p. 152ff.) and finally, the
interest which can be managerial, critical, or descriptive (Martin, 2002, p. 172ff.). Martin contends
that most organisational culture studies are written in the managerial interest to help managers
improving the productivity or performance of their organisations. Critical culture research has an
‘antimanagerial tone’, recognises conflicting preferences, and shows how some preferences are
privileged, whereas others are ignored and suppressed. Descriptive research usually implicitly
claims to be value neutral, but actually it is described more as a sort of residual category. Although
some congruency between Tsang’s typology of school culture theories (e.g. between the
differentiation perspective and the conflict theory or the functionalist and integration perspective)
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
16
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
cannot be denied, we prefer Martin’s typology and we concur with her that functionalist and
symbolic approaches are blurring.
Although developed for corporate organisational research, these three concepts (perspective, level
of analysis, and interest) introduced by Martin do also allow to briefly describe and characterise
school culture studies. For example Deal and Peterson (1999) would have to be classified as
following an integration perspective, on the organisational level with a clear managerial interest.
According to Van Houtte (2005, p. 83) most school researchers follow the differentiation
perspective and acknowledge at least two distinct cultures: the student and the staff culture. With
reference to Prosser (1999) she argues that the holistic view on school culture has been dropped
since the 1990ies. Although this might be true for conceptual writing on school culture this assertion
does not hold true for empirical studies and attempts to measure school culture. Most of these
studies only rely upon the opinions expressed by staff members when measuring school culture.
Although some try to distinguish different teacher sub-cultures and others between actual and
espoused values, the majority of them conceptualise school culture as one single, integrated
organisational culture (see more below).
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
17
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Table 3:
Overview on approaches to organise theoretical perspectives on school culture or
organisational culture.
Tsang (2009)
Müthing (2010)
Göhlich (2007)
Martin (2002)
 Typologyfunctionalist
approach
(Hargreaves, 1995)
 Normative
theories of school
culture (e.g.
Terhart, 1994;
Fend, 1995,
Holtappel, 2003)
 Cultural theory
approach (Fend, 1995;
Göhlich, 2007; Werner
Helsper et al., 1998;
Terhart, 1994)
 Integration
perspectives
(Deal & Kennedy,
1982; Denison, 1990;
Ouchi & Wilkins,
1985; Schein, 1990)
 Process approach –
symbolic
interactionism
(Maxwell and
Thomas, 1991)
 Descriptive
theories of school
culture
(e.g. Helsper,
2008; Deal and
Peterson 1999).
 Micro-political
approach
(Altrichter &
Salzgeber, 2000)
 Differentiation
perspectives
(Alvesson, 1993a;
Meyer & Rowan,
1977)
 Process approach –
conflict theory
(Erickson (1987)
 Integration of
normative and
descriptive
theories of school
culture (Schoen &
Teddlie, 2008)
 Organisational theory
approach
(Dalin, 1993).
 Improvementeffectiveness
approach
(Cavanagh and
Dellar, 1996, 1997,
1998)
 Fragmentation
perspectives
(Alvesson, 1993b;
Brown, Collins, &
Duguid, 1989
Source: Author
3.4 Where is culture located?
For the analysis of school culture it is not only the theoretical perspective which is decisive for the
approach and instruments chosen, but naturally also the second dimension proposed by Martin: the
level of analysis. Or as Firestone puts it the answer to the question on where culture is located:
Culture can be located at least three levels:
1. Nation state
‘Schoolwide cultures are most amenable to administrative influence. However aspects of school
culture that really reflect national cultures will be less amenable to administrative influence.’
(Firestone & Louis, 1999, pp., p. 300) Hence, some characteristics of school culture we tend to
regard as unchangeable are actually attributes of national culture which affect both the school and
the individual teachers, students and parents (e.g. national difference in equality/inequality or
collectivism/individualism). This becomes evident for example in the bargain between teachers and
students to reduce academic expectations. However there is also evidence that ‘a school is a school
no matter where it is located’. Dalin (1993) claims that the same model of school improvement can
work in culturally different countries. A. Hargreaves (1994) argues that the conditions of teaching
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
18
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
and teachers are becoming the same in all post-modern settings. New institutionalists, in contrast,
argue that the increasing similarities in organisational structure among countries are also forcing
cultural similarities6 (Firestone & Louis, 1999, p. 306).
2. School culture: adult staff subcultures
On the one hand, school cultures are often described as coherent answers to various problems, on
the other hand and the other end of the spectrum there are highly fractionalised schools. Metz
(1990) describes such a split in teaching staff and explains the differences according to teachers’
family backgrounds. A. Hargreaves (1986) exerts different occupational acculturation to explain
different subcultures. In a study of a 14 elementary and secondary schools, H. D. Corbett, Dawson,
and Firestone (1984), found that almost everyone had at least one subunit (a grade level, a subject
department, etc.) that was particularly cohesive. (quoted by Firestone & Louis, 1999, p. 306).
According to Firestone and Louis (1999), there are two factors which increase the development of
departmental subcultures: the amount of interaction around departments and the disciplinary base
of departments. Ackeren et al. (2008), studying a sample of 16 German Gymnasiums, found that a
specific subculture of science teaching is relatively autonomous of the dominating general school
culture.
3. School culture: student subculture
Student subcultures have been often described by cliques or social groups and scholars examined
how the formation of student subculture is affected by gender or ethnicity. For example, Erickson
(1987) questions the communication process thesis and the perceived labor market thesis to explain
low school achievement by minority groups and argues for a culturally responsive pedagogy
informed by resistance theory.
Prosser (1999) provides a slightly different, but equally fruitful approach to the question of where
culture is located. He describes by ‘wider culture’ what Firestone and Louis named the level of
national culture. Secondly, he refers to ‘generic culture’ as something by which schools can be
distinguished from other institutions such as hospitals, prisons, or banks. Generic culture is also
used to distinguish between sets of schools, e.g. private vs. public (Cooper, 1988).7 ‘Unique
culture’, as a third term, refers to difference between individual schools. Finally, he suggests
adding ‘perceived culture’ which he again distinguishes between on-site (internal) and off-site
perceived culture (external/outsiders) view. Prosser (1999, p. 11) also acknowledges the
importance of school sub-culture, but does not include these in his ‘typology’ of school culture
meanings. See also Diagram 6 (in the annex) for an approach to ‘locate’ school culture.
6
See for example works by (Baker & LeTendre, 2005; Meyer, Boli, Thomas, & Ramirez, 1997; Strang & Meyer, 1993)
7
n this respect it is also interesting to think about the commonalities between for example hospitals, prisons and schools
in contrast to, for example, private corporations. E.g. Detert and Pollock (2008) speaks of schools as ‘highly
institutionalized organisations dominated by professionals’.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
19
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
4 Review of organisational culture instruments and instruments to
diagnose school cultures
Much has been written about diagnosing and measuring organisational culture and the measurement
instruments developed and their adopted variants have long passed the number of hundred. To keep
an overview, we are condemned to building on existing overview studies and reviews of others. We
summarise here in chronological order the various reviews we have come across. Most of these
reviews focused on quantitative instruments, and even those which claim to include quantitative
and qualitative tools (e.g. Jung et al. (2009) have a bias towards quantitative approaches. This is
interesting inasmuch as the original organisational culture research was qualitative in nature (see
also the Chapter 3.1 on Climate and Culture) and the insight that that there is both a need for
multilevel and multi-method conceptualisation came relatively early (Martin, 1992). By referring to
Ott (1989), Rousseau (1990) and Schein (1990) Ashkanasy, Broadfoot, and Falkus (2000, p. 132) state
that ‘[…] it is generally agreed that surveys represent an efficient and standardised means of
tapping the shallower levels of Schein’s typology. The deepest level of culture, on the other hand,
can be investigated only through intensive observation, focused interviews, and the involvement of
organisational members in self-analysis.’ However, when looking at the actual survey practices this
statement reiterated in one or the other form by many scholars and practitioners in the field does
not hold true. Most of the (quantitative) instruments address values and beliefs, some behaviors,
but non artefacts. Hence, there is no congruency between the hierarchy of levels of culture and the
nature of method in terms of a quantitative-qualitative spectrum or as regards the survey resources
implied.
Ashkanasy et al. (2000) not only provide the first review of questionnaire measures of organisations’
culture they also suggested a very helpful typology to categorise the various instruments. They
distinguish between typing surveys which identify organisations as belonging to one of several
exclusive categories and profiling surveys measuring a variety of organisational culture dimensions.
A distinction scholars have later described as typological or dimensional approach (Jung et al.,
2009; Scott, Mannion, Davies, & Marshall, 2003). Profiling surveys can be further subdivided into
effectiveness surveys, descriptive surveys, and fit profiles. Effectiveness surveys are those which
are related to organisational effectiveness or performance, descriptive surveys measure values
without relating it to performance and fit profiles look for congruence between individuals and the
organisation (Ashkanasy et al., 2000, p. 135). From the eighteen instruments they analysed fifteen
address Schein’s second level (values and beliefs), ten of them are classified as profiling
instruments, five as typing.
Delobbe (2002) reviewed twenty organisational culture questionnaires to identify the common
cultural dimensions and the level of psychometric support for these dimensions. She finds faults
with the coverage of a sufficiently wide range of generic and distinct cultural traits and the
provision of psychometric information, especially concerning their convergent and discriminant
validity. Finally she presents a new assessment tool ECO (Echelles de Culture Organisationnelle)
which allegedly overcomes these shortcomings. The common core dimensions she identified across
questionnaires are: people orientation, innovation, control and results/outcome orientation8. In her
analysis she distinguishes questionnaires which were developed rationally through an a priori
conceptual framework defining relevant dimensions of organisational culture (e.g., the
Organisational Culture Inventory; the Organisational Culture Profile; the Competing Values Model)
and questionnaires which were developed empirically through in-depth interviews of large samples
of organisation members (e.g., the Survey of Management Climate; the Hofstede et al.’s Practices
8
Other studies that have sought to determine the conceptual overlap of culture dimensions across surveys are Detert et al.
(2000), Ginevičius and Vaitkūnaite (2006) and & Vaitkūnaitė, 2006; Xenikou Xenikou and Furnham (1996)
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
20
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Questionnaire; the Comparative Emphasis Scale). Some are hybrids, combining both these deductive
and inductive approaches.
Based on an extensive literature research with a focus on health services conducted in 2001, Scott,
Mannion, Davies, et al. (2003) identified eighty-four papers dealing with the development or use of
culture assessment instruments. Due to their interest in measuring the culture-performance link,
they selected thirteen instruments for an in-depth analysis. These could be described by following
either a typological approach (e.g. the competing Values Framework, Kim S. Cameron and Freeman
(1991)) or a dimensional approach (e.g. the Organisational Culture Inventory, Cooke and Rousseau
(1988)). Unsurprisingly, they came to the conclusion that there is no ideal instrument to assess the
culture of (health) organisations. It depends on how to define ‘culture’, ‘organisation’, and
‘measure’, the purpose of the investigation, the intended use of the results and the availability of
resources Scott, Mannion, Davies, et al. (2003, p. 929). Although determined to focus on
quantitative instruments, they seem to be very much in favor of a multi-method approach:
‘Triangulation may be particularly relevant to the examination of organisational culture, as
different methods can be used to target different layers of culture. For example, the surface
manifestation of culture, the artifacts, may be examined by observation; values may be examined
using quantitative questionnaires; and underlying assumptions explored through in-depth interviews’
(Scott, Mannion, Davies, et al., 2003, p. 935) and they conclude: ‘[…] it is unlikely that any single
instrument will ever provide a valid, reliable, and trustworthy assessment of an organisation’s
culture, and so a multi-method approach will always be desirable.’ (Scott, Mannion, Davies, et al.,
2003, p. 942). Furthermore, they see the majority of the instruments at a preliminary stage and
conclude that there is no ‘ideal’ instrument for the exploration of organisational culture.
By taking both a broad view on what they consider an instrument and a pluralist view on what can
be conceived as ‘organisational culture’ Jung et al. (2009) identified seventy qualitative and
quantitative instruments9 to explore organisational culture and did a psychometric assessment for
forty-eight of them (including three school culture surveys10). A quantitative approach and selfreport questionnaires are among the most common tools applied which they attribute to the
consultancy background of many popular authors and the preference of big-company consultancy.
However, the choice appears to the authors to be pragmatic and driven by the ‘desire to design an
off-the-shelf-product’ rather than theory-driven (Jung et al., 2009, p. 1092). They criticise
quantitative cultural exploration mainly for the rigid categories operationalised by such research:
‘Given pre-determined categories within survey instruments, it is easy for items not contained
within them to remain unnoticed; no unanticipated findings will be made and no information on
respondents’ reasoning behind the answers is obtained, so that one cannot be sure the questions
were interpreted in the intended way. Therefore, the approach will at best arrive at superficial
meanings of organisational culture.’ (Jung et al., 2009, p. 1092). They see the majority of them at a
preliminary stage and also conclude that there is no ‘ideal’ instrument for the exploration of
organisational culture.
While only interested in instruments that seek to diagnose the effectiveness of organisational
cultures, Denison, Nieminen, and Kotrba (2012) provide an update of Ashkanasy et al. (2000) review
and of Jung et al. (2009) by adding a further three to the existing six profiling instruments identified
previously in this category. In as much as they deliberately review the existing research it remains
unclear why they did not incorporate the review provided by Taras, Rowney, and Steel (2009) which
is based on the most comprehensive collection of respective instruments to date. Maybe because
they have a cross-cultural focus and mainly referred to national cultures? However, their collection
of 121 instruments also contains quite a number of instruments aiming at measuring organisational
9
See also their compendium of instruments: Jung et al. (2007).
10
School Quality Management Culture Survey; School Values Inventory; School Work Culture Profile
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
21
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
culture. 11 Taras et al. (2009) identified the twenty-six most popular facets of culture (thirteen of
them have been used by not less than fifteen instruments, four of them have been used by at least
thirty instruments12). Almost all of them contain at least some dimensions that are conceptually
similar to those introduced by Hofstede (1980) whose work they are using as a reference point.
Their analysis provides a valuable characterisation of existing instruments from which we can learn
that self-report questionnaires have been virtually the only tool for quantitative measurement of
culture, that they all follow an ethical approach, and that most cross-national studies include data
from two to ten countries with the exception of a few larger studies. Apart from that their analysis
of challenges and best practices for collecting data, types of items, reliability and validity could be
easily transferred into a guideline to develop a culture assessment questionnaire.
Summarising the various reviews of measurement instruments for organisational culture, we can
conclude that: firstly, there is no ideal instrument; secondly, there has been a trend towards
quantifying instruments since the late 1980ies; and thirdly, against the shared knowledge that
multi-methods would be most appropriate, multi-method cultural studies are still the exception13.
Finally, not only the instruments themselves, but also the reviews are biased towards the interests
of the authors, often only selecting a certain subset or with a clear interest to focus on quantitative
studies.
Table 4: Common descriptors to categorise instruments exploring organisational culture:
Method
Qualitative, quantitative, or Combined (multi-method)
Development
Conceptual or empirical (Delobbe, 2002)
Approach
Typological (typing) or dimensional (profiling) (Ashkanasy et al., 2000;
Jung et al., 2009; Scott, Mannion, Davies, et al., 2003);
Purpose
formative, summative, or diagnostic14 (Jung et al., 2009);
effectiveness surveys, descriptive surveys, and fit profiles (Ashkanasy
et al., 2000)
Source: Authors
11
In 2013 (Taras) published an updated version of the collection of instruments (in alphabetical order by authors) including
an extract of the dimensions or items used including 157 instruments.
12
These are: self vs. group interest, group loyality, teamwork and cooperation, self-reliance.
13
The common case made against qualitative methods is that (a) the dimensions of culture identified in one setting are
idiosyncratic and not necessarily relevant in another context, (b) the qualitative approach is unable to produce culture
information coherently linkable to major outcomes such as organisational performance. For advocates of a alternative
and multi-method approaches see Easterby-Smith (1988), Mallak, Lyth, Olson, Ulshafer, and Sardone (2003), (Yauch &
Steudel, 2003), or Martin (2002), Chapter II, 7.
14
“A formative exploration offers feedback on the cultural elements of performance and change. This can be used to
inform organisational development and learning. A cross-sectional or longitudinal examination of culture and its
relationship to other organisational variables is offered through summative exploration. Such an approach can inform
judgment on various characteristics and dimensions of culture and can be employed within formal performance
management arrangements. Finally, a diagnostic exploration can offer insights on existing cultural traits and processes
within an organisation and their functionality in relation to promoting desirable organisational processes and outcomes.
The purpose is to identify areas of strengths and weakness within an organisation, and it can be used to examine
organisational capacity, receptiveness, and readiness for cultural change at the organisation, unit, team, or individual
level. While summative approaches are of greater interest to those concerned with understanding organisational culture
from a general research perspective, formative and diagnostic approaches are of interest to those looking to manage and
develop organisational culture” (Jung et al., 2009). Compare this also with Martins distinction in managerial, critical and
descriptive.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
22
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
4.1.1 School culture surveys
The field of school culture surveys is better manageable than organisational culture surveys, but
still there are quite a number of survey instruments which can be identified. Luckily, there is a
seminal review of school culture survey by Maslowski (2005) based on his thesis (Maslowski, 2001).
Maslowksi restricted his analysis to questionnaires which clearly focus on school culture, which are
multidimensional and validated. He identified some twenty questionnaires from which he finally
selected six which met his requirements. However, some of his exclusion criteria allow to map the
wider terrain of school culture surveys (see Table 5). Thus, on a very superficial categorisation we
can distinguish (1) ‘genuine’ instruments exploring school culture, from (2) instruments originally
designed to explore organisational culture and occasionally applied to school settings, and (3)
instruments directed at measuring related constructs or constructs which may contain facets of
culture such as organisational climate in schools, organisational health, or instruments for
measuring teachers’ well-being or commitment and the like. However, for some of the instruments
in the first group it is difficult to say whether they measure culture or climate and some authors are
ambiguous in their own wording in this respect (e.g. Roby, 2011). Finally, all of the instruments
refer in one way or the other to survey instruments developed to measure organisational culture or
culture in general, and hence it is often a question of the degree of adaptation whether we should
categorise it as ‘genuine’ school culture survey instrument or merely as application or adaption of
an existing instrument for organisational culture.
For many reasons it is very difficult, if not impossible to determine the number of existing
instruments to explore school culture: First, some instruments are based on previous ones and some
exist in different versions and it is unclear how these should be counted. Second, there is no clearcut criterion defining what constitutes a genuine school culture survey instrument and how to
distinguish it from e.g. a school climate survey (see the argument of Denison Chapter 3.1). Third,
our research was limited to English and German instruments and, rather accidentally, came across
one in Dutch. However, there is some evidence that some genuine school culture surveys have taken
place also in Spain, Poland and the Czech Republic, but we did not have the resources to follow
these. Fourth, there are a number of unidentified school culture questionnaires which can be found
on the internet and for which it is unclear when, how and by whom they have been developed 15.
These instruments are often provided by administrators of school districts or commercial providers
and only occasionally refer to the literature on which the instrument is based. The availability of
these instruments shows that a certain diffusion of school culture survey instruments from research
to practice has taken place in the last decade and there seems to be both a scholarly discourse as
well as a particular school improvement practice related to school culture. However, the problem is
that we have very limited knowledge about the actual use of school culture survey instruments.
Research is needed which explores the practice of application of existing instruments and which
follows the further development of instruments after their maiden trip. If we leave those that have
never passed their early stages and those which have never been validated, still for many of the
developed instruments which are well documented it is not known whether they have even been
ever used a second time.
Out of the instruments identified to explore school culture, the majority are purely quantitative.
Some include qualitative aspects either as particular methodological steps (e.g. PREP Centre) or as
part of the method (Hejj, 1997) (the latter example is rather a preliminary work for an instrument
than an instrument itself). Alternative methods, for example visual methods, are in their infancy
15
E.g. The National Achiever School Culture Survey (nationalachiever.com/schoolculturesurvey.pdf.), The Virginia
Commonwealth University School Culture Survey, The Association of California School Administrators ACSA School Culture
Survey (www.acsa.org), The Respect and Responsibility School Culture Survey of State University of New York Cortland
(www.cortland.edu) or the Motivation and School Culture Survey of the PREP Centre (http://www.district287.org). All
accessed 31. January 2014.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
23
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
(Prosser, 2007). Only for a few instruments tests for reliability and validity are available
((Maslowski, 2005). Most questionnaires use a 4- or 5-point Likert scale, but there is a big range as
regards the number of items used (from 12 two 120). Typological approaches are scarce which may
be explained by the fact that the general institutional framework of schools leaves little room to
develop pronounced types of culture (e.g. in terms of Cameron’s clan, market, adhocracy, hierarchy
typology, for an exception see Müthing (2010)). Some have a particular subject focus, e.g. on
quality (Detert et al., 2003), democracy (Diedrich, 2007), respect (Cortland, 2012) or motivation
(Maehr & Fyans, 1990; PREP Centre).
Table 5: Overview of school culture survey instruments
Instruments
exploring school
cultures
 School Culture Survey (Edwards, 1996; Saphier & King, 1985; SchweikerMarra, 1995)
 Questionnaire on the Cultures of Organisations (Handy & Aitken, 1986)
 School Work Culture Profile (Snyder, 1988)
 Organisational Cultural Assessment Inventory (Steinhoff & Owens, 1989)
 Professional Culture Questionnaire for Primary Schools (Staessens, 1990,
1991b)
 School Culture Assessment Questionnaire and School District Culture
Assessment Questionnaire (Sashkin, 1990)
 School Culture Survey (Maehr & Fyans, 1990)
 Organisational Value Orientation Questionnaire (Shaw and Reyes 1992)
 School-classroom culture audit (Phillips, 1993)
 Organisational Ideology Questionnaire (Cheng 1993, 1996)
 School Culture Scale (Higgins-D'Alessandro, 1995; Higgins-D'Alessandro &
Sadh, 1998)
 School Culture Inventory (Jones, 1996)
 Images of School through Metaphor questionnaire (Grady, Fisher, & Fraser,
1996)
 School Cultural Elements Questionnaire ( Cavanagh & Dellar, 1996; 1997;
Tsang, 2009)
Questionnaire for measuring organisational culture in primary schools
(Houtveen et al., 1996)
 School Values Inventory (Pang, 1996)
 Assoziations- und Inhaltsanalyse von Schulkultur (Hejj, 1997)
 School Culture Survey (Gruenert and Valentines, 1998)
 School Culture Typology offered by the West Virginia Department of
Education, based on Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) and Deal and Peterson
(1999)
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
24
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
 School Culture Inventory (Maslowski, 2001)
 School Culture Audit (Wagner & Masden-Copas, 2002)
 School Quality Management Culture Survey SQMCS (Detert et al., 2003)
 Demokratische Schulkultur (Diedrich, 2007)
 Quick School Culture Inventory (Kruse & Louis, 2009)
School Culture Review (Roby, 2011)
 School Culture Scale (Cheng, 2012)
 Measuring School Culture Survey (Ney, 2013)
Organisational
culture
questionnaires
applied to school
contexts
 Cooke and Lafferty’s (1986) Organisational Culture Inventory, (see
Cocchiola, 1990; Mooijman, 1994; Rzoska, 2000)
 The Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (Kim S Cameron and
Ettington (1988); Kim S. Cameron and Freeman (1991); Kim S. Cameron
and Quinn (2011)) was applied to Higher Education (Smart & John, 1996)
and adapted to school context (see Müthing, 2010)
 Index of organisational ideology based on Alvesson (1987) and Price and
Mueller (1986) Price and Mueller (1986) was used by (Cheng, 1993)
Questionnaires
related to school
culture
inventories
questionnaires directed at measuring organisational climate in schools,
organisational health, or instruments for measuring teachers’ well-being or
commitment and the like
Source: Author
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
25
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
5 Lessons to learn for Q-KULT
Im folgenden Abschnitt habe ich Überlegungen, im Sinne von Empfehlungen, Anregungen und Fragen
für die weitere Arbeit am Q-Kult-Projekt, die mir während der Erstellung des Arbeitspapiers
gekommen sind zusammengefasst.
5.1 Eigene Annahmen explizieren!
Ohne dass wir uns auf einen endgültigen theoretischen Zugang bzw. ein Kulturmodell verständigt
hätten, determiniert die Ausgangsituation des Projekts implizit eine Reihe an grundsätzlichen,
theoretischen Sichtweisen. Es gilt im weiteren diese impliziten Annahmen unserer Arbeit zu
explizieren und zu diskutieren. Die Literaturanalyse erlaubt zumindest einen Teil der impliziten
Annahmen des Projektantrags wie folgt zu identifizieren:
1.
Der Ausgangsüberlegung ‘Schulkultur wirkt förderlich/hinderlich auf Qualitätsentwicklung(instrumente)’ liegt eine funktionalistische Sichtweise zugrunde (Schulkultur als Funktion von
Schulentwicklung). Diese kann normativ funktionalistisch (‘eine starke/positive Schulkultur
fördert QM’) oder neutral funktionalistisch (‘kontextspezifische Schulkultur’) gedeutet werden.
Sind nicht-funktionalistische Sichtweisen bei der Ausgangssituation überhaupt denkbar? Wie
könnte eine institutionalistische oder konflikttheoretische Auslegung des Zusammenhangs von
Qualitätsmanagement und Schulkultur, die dennoch Gestaltungsraum lässt, aussehen?
2.
Dem Ausgangspunkt liegt außerdem die Annahme zugrunde, dass Schulkultur prinzipiell
verändert werden kann. Diese Annahme wiederum fußt auf der Einsicht, dass Kultur etwas ist,
was eine Organisation ‘hat’ und nicht was sie ‘ist’ (Eine Einschätzung, die bei genauere
Hinsicht wenig hilfreich ist). Dies geht konform mit der Ansicht, dass das Projektsetting eine
Vergleichbarkeit der Schulkulturen voraussetzt und die Veränderung der Kultur steht im
Vordergrund, und nicht das Verstehen der individuellen Kultur und Bedeutung der Organisation.
3.
Eine weitere Projektannahme ist, dass Schulkultur (zumindest teilweise) quantitativ erhoben
werden kann. Dies verweist auf ein eingeschränktes Kulturverständnis bzw. zumindest eine
Einschränkung des Untersuchungsgegenstandes und rückt den Fokus eher in Richtung der
Schulklima-Forschung bzw. einer intermediären Kulturebene der Einstellungen und Werte.
Welche Ebenen und Dimensionen der Schulkultur fallen der gewählten Methode und der
Praktikabilität des Instruments zum Opfer? Sollen wir trotz Einschränkung von Schulkultur
sprechen oder wäre es eventuell ratsamer auf Ebene der tatsächlich identifizierten bzw.
gemessenen Faktoren (z.B. von Lehrenden wahrgenommene Einstellungen) zu operieren?
Schließlich ist auch die Frage zu stellen, wie nicht-kulturelle Aspekte auf die Implementierung
bzw. Verwendung von Qualitätsmanagement wirken, wo diese in einem Wirkungsmodell Platz
finden, und wie sie mit kulturellen Dimensionen interagieren.
4.
Aus Punkt 2 (Änderung der Schulkultur), der Ausrichtung des zu entwickelnden Produkts auf die
Schulleitung bzw. der Ursprung der Projektidee vor dem Hintergrund der Probleme der
Schuladministration mit der Einführung von Qualitätsmanagement, folgt weiters ein
‘unternehmerischer’ Zugang bzw. ein Verwaltungsinteresse im Gegensatz etwa zu einem
ausschließlich kritischen oder deskriptiven Zugang. Welche Einschränkungen ergeben sich
daraus? Wie kann ein Zugang der gleichermaßen das Verwaltungsinteresse bedient und kritisch
ist, aussehen? Jedenfalls gilt es das Interesse explizit zu machen und nicht etwa hinter
vorgegebenen Forschungsinteressen zu verstecken.
5.
In diesem Zusammenhang ist es auch wichtig sich des Projektkontextes bewusst zu werden.
Warum kommt es gerade jetzt zu diesem Projekt? Welche Bedingungen mussten dazu erfüllt
sein? Wieviel Erfahrung mit QM in der Berufsbildung mussten vorliegen? Wenn derartige
Entwicklungen als Zyklus verstanden werden, können wir in Analogie zu anderen Bereichen
nicht auch schon die Ergebnisse absehen? Wie verändert eine etwaige Voraussicht unser
Verhalten?
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
26
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
6.
Die Einschränkung der ‘Schulkultur’ bzw. Schulqualitätskultur’-Erhebung auf die Zielgruppe der
Lehrenden bzw. des Schulpersonals negiert das Vorhandensein möglicher Subkulturen und
impliziert einen ‘integrativen’ Ansatz (Martin) bzw. folgt gegebenenfalls einem anderen
Ansatz, der jedoch empirisch nicht oder nur eingeschränkt verfolgt wird (siehe dazu auch die
nächsten Punkte). Wie legitimieren wir im Falle der Entwicklung bzw. der Anwendung eines
elaborierteren theoretischen Modells die empirischen Einschränkungen?
5.2 Den Gegenstand, die Ebene bzw. den Ort der Kultur spezifizieren!
Neben der Festlegung der inhaltlichen Dimensionen (zum Teil durch besondere Berücksichtigung von
Qualitätsmanagement bereits festgelegt) und der Kulturebenen (zum Teil durch Festlegung des
Erhebungsinstruments eingeschränkt) gilt es auch den eigentlichen Untersuchungsgegenstand / das
zu untersuchende Phänomen zu spezifizieren. Die bereits getroffenen Einschränkungen, etwa auf
Lehrende als Quelle bzw. die individuelle Schulkultur als Gegenstand, sind dazu keinesfalls
ausreichend. Zunächst gilt es dabei die bereits getroffenen Einschränkungen grob im möglichen
Gesamtfeld zu verorten und die Unterscheidung der Verortung von Schulkultur zur reflektieren.
1.
Die Mitberücksichtigung des Einflusses nationaler Kultur könnte für das Projekt eine besondere
Chance im Sinne eines Forschungsbeitrages zur Behebung des Mangels an vergleichenden
Studien darstellen (Firestone & Louis, 1999, p. 318). Wie werden in dem Instrument nationale
Spezifika abgebildet?
2.
Die insbesondere in der Berufsbildung stark ausgeprägten Lehrenden-Subkulturen (bedingt
durch Unterschiede in der Ausbildung, aber auch der disziplinären Zugehörigkeit) stellt eine
weitere besondere Ressource im Projekt dar. Hier wäre zumindest entlang von drei
Differenzierungen zu arbeiten: erstens zwischen Werkstättenlehrer vs. Fachlehrer, zweitens
zwischen berufsfachlichen und allgemeinbildende Fächern unterrichtenden Lehrern, und
drittens die Fachdisziplin selbst betreffend. Eventuell ist auch innerhalb der
allgemeinbildendenden Fächer auch noch zu unterscheiden ist (vgl. zum Beispiel zum
naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht Ackeren et al., 2008). Jedenfalls ist auch mit nationalen
Unterschieden auf der Ebene dieser möglichen Subkulturen zu rechnen. Welche Annahmen dazu
können wir formulieren?
3.
Schüler(sub)kulturen werden nicht berücksichtigt. Welche Einschränkungen ergeben sich
dadurch? Kann dies durch Forschungsergebnisse aus anderen Bereichen kompensiert werden?
Wie verändert Schülerkultur jene der Erwachsenen (offene Forschungsfrage)? Darf man
trotzdem von Schulkultur sprechen?
5.3 Sich die methodischen Einschränkungen bewusst machen!
Kein bestehendes Instrument zur Erfassung von Schulkultur oder Schulqualitätskultur wird ideal sein,
sondern immer von individuellen Zielen und Gebrauch abhängig. Triangulation von Methoden ist bei
der Kulturerfassung noch eher Seltenheit, jedoch von jenen die unterschiedliche Instrumente
verglichen haben, als künftiger Königsweg beschrieben. Kombinierte theoretische Modelle der
Organisationskultur (Martin, 2002) oder Schulkultur (Schoen & Teddlie, 2008) erfordern jedenfalls
unterschiedliche Quellen und Methoden. Auch Maslowski (2006) spricht sich für Triangulation aus.
Wir müssen uns im Zuge der Instrumentenentwicklung Klarheit über die diversen Einschränkungen
verschaffen. Welche Kulturebene, welche Kulturdimensionen und welche mögliche Subkulturen
werden nicht bedient?
1.
Die Menge an bestehenden Instrumenten, und jene die sie teilweise analysierten, sprechen
dafür sich diese genauer anzusehen, bevor überhaupt ein neues Instrument entwickelt wird.
Dies ist zwar teilweise, aber sicher nicht vollständig geschehen. Insbesondere eine
Systematisierung der verwendeten Items würde sich dafür wohl als nützlich erweisen. Sofern
die Instrumente zugänglich sind, ist das verhältnismäßig rasch zu bewerkstelligen.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
27
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
2.
Einige der Instrumente müssten jedoch erst ausgehoben und zusätzliche Informationen dazu
eingeholt werden. So steht etwa auch eine Vervollständigung der Tabelle 7 (im Anhang) noch
aus. Die Ressourcen, dies in der erforderlichen Qualität zu bewerkstelligen, stehen jedoch
nicht zur Verfügung. Können wir stattdessen klare Auswahlkriterien für mögliche Instrumente
(z.B. nur validierte Instrumente, max. Anzahl an Items, Mehrdimensionalität, enthaltene
Dimensionen) formulieren, die uns eine ex-Ante Einschränkung ermöglichen?
3.
Die Wiederverwendung eines bestehenden Instruments würde der Fragmentierung der
Forschung in diesem Bereich entgegenwirken und zur Systematisierung des Feldes beitragen. Es
würde eventuell auch Ressourcen für anderes freimachen. Lässt sich eventuell ein Kompromiss
durch die Adaptierung eines bestehenden Instruments finden, welche noch ausreichend
Vergleichbarkeit zum Originalinstrument sicherstellt und den eigenen Zwecken genügt?
4.
Ein noch interessanterer Vorschlag und bislang in dem Bereich nicht praktizierter Zugang wäre
der gleichzeitige Test-Einsatz von mehreren (idealerweise drei) Instrumenten. Dabei könnte das
im Projekt genuine entwickelte Instrument, neben einem oder zwei bestehenden Instrumenten
getestet werden. Im Fachjargon bedeutet dies einen Multitrait-Multimethod-Ansatz (MTMM)
mittels welchem die Messgüte der einzelnen Instrumente abgeschätzt werden könnte. Nachdem
es sich bei den Schulen um Partner handelt, wäre ein solches Vorgehen, welches ja auf eine
Mehrfachbefragung hinausläuft, eventuell auch zumutbar.
5.
Haben wir im Projekt die notwendigen statistischen Kompetenzen, um die geplanten Tests der
Instrumente adäquat durchzuführen?
6.
Neben den unterschiedlichen theoretischen, und zum Teil ideologischen Zugängen gibt es zum
Teil stark separierte Diskurse (organisationstheoretischer, erziehungswissenschaftlicher,
wissenschaftsgestützter Diskurs der Qualitätsmanagementpraxis, usw.). Zu welchen der
bestehenden Diskurse erwarten wir aus dem Projekt einen Beitrag neben den praktischen
Zielen, die das Projekt verfolgt? Eine besondere Segregationslinie verläuft offensichtlich
zwischen der theoretisch/konzeptionell wohl recht fortgeschrittenen
deutschen
erziehungswissenschaftlichen Literatur zur Schulkultur und der stärker empirisch orientierten
multi-disziplinärer englischsprachigen Literatur. Lassen sich diese Stränge verknüpfen und für
das Projekt fruchtbar machen?
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
28
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
6 References:
Ackeren, I. v., Block, R., Kullmann, H., & Klemm, K. (2008). Schulkultur als Kontext
naturwissenschaftlichen Lernens. Allgemeine und fachspezifische explorative Analysen. Zeitschrift
für Pädagogik, 54(3), 341-360.
Al-khalifa, K. N., & Aspinwall, E. M. (2000). Using the competing values framework to identify the
ideal culture profile for TQM: a UK perspective. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology
and Management, 2(1), 1024-1040.
Altrichter, H., & Salzgeber, S. (2000). Some elements of a micro-political theory of school
development. Images of educational change, 99-110.
Alvesson, M. (1987). Organizations, culture, and ideology. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 4-18.
Alvesson, M. (1993a). Cultural perspectives on organizations: Cambridge University Press.
Alvesson, M. (1993b). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge‐intensive firms and the struggle with
ambiguity. Journal of management studies, 30(6), 997-1015.
Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A theory of quality management
underlying the Deming management method. Academy of management Review, 19(3), 472-509.
Argyris, C. (1958). Some Problems in Conceptualizing Organizational Climate: A Case Study of a
Bank. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(4).
Ashkanasy, N. M., Broadfoot, L. E., & Falkus, S. A. (2000). Questionnaire measures of organizational
culture. In N. M. Ashkanasy, M. F. Peterson & C. P. Wilderom (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
culture and climate (pp. 129-162). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Baird, K., Hu, K. J., & Reeve, R. (2011). The relationships between organizational culture, total
quality management practices and operational performance. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 31(7), 789-814.
Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and
the future of schooling: Stanford University Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Burrello, L. C., & Reitzug, U. C. (1993). Transforming context and developing culture in schools.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 71(6), 669-677.
Cameron, K. S., & Ettington, D. R. (1988). The conceptual framework of organizational culture.
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 6, 356-396.
Cameron, K. S., & Freeman, S. J. (1991). Cultural congruenz, strenght and type: Relationships to
effectiveness. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 23-58.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on
the competing values framework: John Wiley & Sons.
Cavanagh, R. F., & Dellar, G. B. (1996). School cultural elements questionnaire. (Dissertation),
Curtin University, Perth.
Cavanagh, R. F., & Dellar, G. B. (1997). Towards a Model of School Culture. Paper presented at the
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Cavanagh, R. F., & Dellar, G. B. (1998). The Development, Maintenance and Transformation of
School Culture.
Chang, S. (1996). The ideal culture profile for total quality management: a competing values
perspective.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
29
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Cheng, Y. C. (1993). Profiles of Organizational Culture and Effective Schools. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 4(2), 85-110.
Collier, D., Daniel Hidalgo, F., & Olivia Maciuceanu, A. (2006). Essentially contested concepts:
Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(3), 211-246.
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioral Norms and Expectations: A Quantitative
Approach To the Assessment of Organizational Culture. Group & Organization Management, 13(3),
245-273. doi: 10.1177/105960118801300302
Cooper, M. (1988). Whose culture is it anyway? In A. Liebermann (Ed.), Building a professional
culture in schools (pp. 45-54). New York: Teachers College Press.
Corbett, H. D., Dawson, J. A., & Firestone, W. A. (1984). School context and school change:
Implications for effective planning: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Corbett, L. M., & Rastrick, K. N. (2000). Quality performance and organizational culture: A New
Zealand study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(1), 14-26.
Cortland, S. U. o. N. Y. (2012). Respect and Responsibility School Culture Survey. In Center for the
4th and 5th Rs (Ed.). www.cortland.edu/ch.
Dalin, P. (1993). Changing the School Culture. London: Cassell.
Davies, H., Nutley, S. M., & Mannion, R. (2000). Organisational Culture and Quality of Health Care.
Quality in Health Care, 9, 10.
Davies, J., Douglas, A., & Douglas, J. (2007). The effect of academic culture on the implementation
of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(4), 382-401.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of organizational
life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Reading.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1990). The Principal's Role in Shaping School Culture edited by M.
Shaskin & H. J. Walberg. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Company.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2010). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises:
John Wiley & Sons.
Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: improving research and
practice through theory development. Academy of management Review, 19(3), 392-418.
Delobbe, N. H. (Ed.). (2002). Measuring core dimensions of organizational culture: A Review of
research and development of a new instrument. Unpublished manuscript: Universite catholique de
Louvain, Belgium.
Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness: John Wiley & Sons.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of management Review,
21(3), 619-654.
Denison, D. R., Nieminen, L., & Kotrba, L. (2012). Diagnosing organizational cultures: A conceptual
and empirical review of culture. Effectiveness surveys. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology(ahead-of-print), 1-17.
Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A
competing values approach. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5(1), 1-21.
Detert, J. R., & Pollock, T. G. (2008). Values, Interests, and the Capacity to Act Understanding
Professionals' Responses to Market-Based Improvement Initiatives in Highly Institutionalized
Organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(2), 186-214.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
30
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Cudeck, R. (2003). The measurement of quality management
culture in schools: development and validation of the SQMCS. Journal of Operations Management,
21(3), 307-328.
Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and
improvement initiatives in organizations. Academy of management Review, 25(4), 850-863.
Detert, J. R., Seashore Louis, K., & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). A culture framework for education:
Defining quality values and their impact in US high schools. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 12(2), 183-212.
Diedrich, M. (2007). Demokratische Schulkultur - Messung und Effekte. Frankfurt/Main.
Dow, D., Samson, D., & Ford, S. (1999). Exploding the myth: do all quality management practices
contribute to superior quality performance? Production and operations management, 8(1), 1-27.
Duncker, L. (1995). Schulkultur als Anspruch und Realisierung von Bildung. Anmerkungen zum
pädagogischen Selbstverständnis der Schule. Pädagogische Welt, 10, 442-445.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1988). Evaluating the development of corporate cultures: A case for naturalistic
methods? Management Education & Development.
Eder, F., & Dämon, K. (2010). 6. Organisationsklima, Schulkultur und Verhaltensauffälligkeiten bei
Schülerinnen und Schülern. In J. Schmich & C. Schreiner (Eds.), BIFIE-Report 4/2010: TALIS 2008
(2010): Schule als Lernumfeld und Arbeitsplatz. Vertiefende Analysen aus österreichischer
Perspektive.
Ehlers, U.-D. (2008). Qualitätskultur für bessere Bildung. Hochschulen auf dem Weg von einer
Kontroll-zu einer Qualitätskultur [Einzelbeitrag]. bildungsforschung, 1.
Ehlers, U.-D. (2009). Understanding quality culture. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 343-363.
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational
achievement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 335-356.
European University Association. (2005). Developing an Internal Quality Culture in European
Universities. Report on the Quality Culture Project 2002-2003 1st European Forum for Quality
Assurance (pp. 99). Munich: European University Association.
European University Association. (2007). Embedding Quality Culture in Higher Education. Paper
presented at the 1st European Forum for Quality Assurance, Munich.
Fend, H. (1995). Schulkultur und Schulqualität. Zeitschriftt für Pädagogik, Beiheft, 34, 85-98.
Firestone, W. A., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Schools as cultures Handbook of research on educational
administration (Vol. 2, pp. 297-322).
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for quality management
research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management, 11(4),
339-366.
Flynn, B. B., Schroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1995). The impact of quality management practices
on performance and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences, 26(5), 659-691.
Freiberg, H. J., & Stein, T. A. (1999). Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning
environments. School climate: Measuring, improving and sustaining healthy learning environments,
11-29.
Frost, P., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (1995). Reframing Organizational
Culture: Sage Publications.
Gallear, D., & Ghobadian, A. (2004). An empirical investigation of the channels that facilitate a
total quality culture. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 15(8), 1043-1067.
Gallie, W. B. (1955). Essentially contested concepts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
Aristotelian society.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
31
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Gifford, B. D., Zammuto, R. F., & Goodman, E. A. (2002). The relationship between hospital unit
culture and nurses' quality of work life. Journal of Healthcare Management/American College of
Healthcare Executives, 47(1), 13.
Ginevičius, R., & Vaitkūnaite, V. (2006). Analysis of organizational culture dimensions impacting
performance. Journal of business economics and management, 7(4), 201-211.
Göhlich, M. (2007). Schulkultur. In H. J. Apel & W. Sacher (Eds.), Studienbuch Schulpädagogik (pp.
104-120). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Goodman, E. A., Zammuto, R. F., & Gifford, B. D. (2001). The Competing Values Framework:
Understanding the impact of organizational culture on the quality of work life. Organization
Development Journal.
Gordon, G. (2002). The Roles of Leadership and Ownership in Building an Effective Quality Culture.
Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 97-106. doi: 10.1080/13538320220127498
Gordon, G. G., & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance from organizational
culture. Journal of management studies, 29(6), 783-798.
Green, T. J. (2012). TQM and organisational culture: how do they link? Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 23(2), 141-157.
Haffar, M., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Ghoneim, A. (2013). The mediating effect of individual readiness
for change in the relationship between organisational culture and TQM implementation. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(5-6), 693-706.
Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1962). The organizational climate of schools (Vol. 11): Midewest
Administration Center, University of Chicago.
Hargreaves, A. (1986). Two cultures of schooling: The case of middle schools: Falmer Press Lewes.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the
postmodern age: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Hargreaves, D. (1995). School culture, school effectiveness and school improvement. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 6(1), 23-46.
Harvey, L. (2009). Deconstructing quality culture. Paper presented at the A presentation given in a
European Association for Institutional Research (EAIR) Annual Conference in Vilnius.
Harvey, L., & Stensaker, B. (2008). Quality culture: Understandings, boundaries and linkages.
European Journal of Education, 43(4), 427-442.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of management Review,
18(4), 657-693.
Heck, R. H., & Marcoulides, G. A. (1996). School culture and performance: Testing the invariance of
an organizational model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 7(1), 76-95.
Hejj, A. (1997). Empirische Methoden zur Erfassung der Schulkultur. In N. Seibert (Ed.), Anspruch
Schulkultur. Interdisziplinäre Darstellung eines neuzeitlichen Schulpädagogischen Begriffs (pp. 97118). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Helsper, W. (2000). Wandel der Schulkultur. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 3(1), 35-60.
Helsper, W. (2008). Schulkulturen-die Schule als symbolische Sinnordnung. Zeitschrift für
Pädagogik, 54(1), 63-80.
Helsper, W. (2010). Der kulturtheoretische Ansatz: Entwicklung der Schulkultur. In T. Bohl (Ed.),
Handbuch Schulentwicklung. Theorie
- Forschungsbefunde - Entwicklungsprozesse Methodenrepertoire (pp. 106-112). Bad Heilbrunn
Verlag Julius Klinkhardr.
Helsper, W., Böhme, J., Kramer, R.-T., & Lingkost, A. (1998). Entwürfe zu einer Theorie der
Schulkultur und des Schulmythos - strukturtheoretische, mikropolitische und rekonstruktive
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
32
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Perspektiven. In J. Keuffer (Ed.), Schulkultur als Gestaltungsaufgabe. Partizipation - Management Lebensweltgestaltung (pp. 29-75). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultural consequences. Beverly Hills: Stage.
Hofstede, G. (2010/1991). Cultures and Organizations - Software of the Mind - Intercultural
Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holtappels, H. G. (1995). Schulkultur und Innovation - Ansätze, Trends und Perspektiven der
Schulentwicklung. In H. G. Holtappels (Ed.), Entwicklung von Schulkultur. Ansätze und Wege
schulischer Erneuerung (pp. 6-36). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Holtappels, H. G. (2003). Entwicklung von Schulkultur und Schulqualität. In H. G. Holtappels (Ed.),
Schulqualität durch Schulentwicklung und Evaluation (pp. 23-51). München: Luchterhand.
Hoy, W. K. (2011). Organizational climate and culture: A conceptual analysis of the school
workplace / Improving schools: studies in leadership and culture, Chapter 5: Organizational Culture
of Schools. (Power Point).
Hoy, W. K., Miskel, C. G., & Nelson, J. L. (1978). Educational administration: Theory, research, and
practice: Random House New York.
Irani, Z., Beskese, A., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Total quality management and corporate culture:
constructs of organisational excellence. Technovation, 24(8), 643-650.
Ittner, H., & Kurz, S. (2012). Qualität und Kultur - eine Annäherung. Replik auf „Qualität braucht
Kultur“ von JONACH et al. in dieser bwp@ Ausgabe 21. bwp@ Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 21,
1-7.
Jonach, M., Gramlinger, F., & Hartl, S. (2012). Qualität braucht Kultur. Das Quality Culture Konzept
und seine Anwendungsmöglichkeiten im Kontext von (berufsbildenden) Schulen. bwp@ Berufs- und
Wirtschaftspädagogik - online, 21, 11.
Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H. T. O., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R. (2007).
Instruments for the Exploration of Organisational Culture. www.scothub.org.
Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H. T. O., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R., & Mannion, R. (2009).
Instruments for Exploring Organizational Culture: A Review of the Literature. Public Administration
Review, 69(6), 6.
Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects
on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405-435.
Kells, H. R. (1995). Creating a culture of evaluation and self regulation in higher education
organizations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 6(5), 13. doi:
10.1080/09544129550035125
Keuffer, J., Krüger, H.-H., Reinhardt, S., Weise, E., & Wenzel, H. (1998). Schulkultur als
Gestaltungsaufgabe: Dt. Studien-Verlag.
Keuffer, J., & Trautmann, M. (2010). Institution und Schulkultur. In T. Bohl (Ed.), Handbuch
Schulentwicklung. Theorie - Forschungsbefunde - Entwicklungsprozesse - Methodenrepertoire (pp.
113-118). Bad Heilbrunn: Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Klein, A. S., Masi, R. J., & Weidner, C. K. (1995). Organization Culture, Distribution and Amount of
Control, and Perceptions of Quality An Empirical Study of Linkages. Group & Organization
Management, 20(2), 122-148.
Kluchert, G. (2009). Schulkultur (en) in historischer Perspektive. Einführung in das Thema.
Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 55(3), 326-333.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance: New York: Free Press.
Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Teacher teaming in middle schools: Dilemmas for a schoolwide
community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3), 261-289.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
33
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Kruse, S. D., & Seashore Louis, K. (2009). Building Strong School Cultures. A Guide to leading
change: Corwin Press (SAGE).
Lagrosen, S. (2003). Exploring the impact of culture on quality management. International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(4), 473-487. doi: 10.1108/02656710310468632
Lam, M. Y., Poon, G. K. K., & Chin, K. S. (2008). An organizational learning model for vocational
education in the context of TQM culture. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 25(3), 238-255.
Le Clear, E. A. (2005). Relationships among leadership styles, school culture, and student
achievement.
University
of
Florida.
Retrieved
from
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0013022/leclear_e.pdf
Leithwood, K. A., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Organizational Learning in Schools: Swets &
Zeitlinger Publishers.
Lewis, D. (1996). The organizational culture saga-from OD to TQM: a critical review of the
literature. Part 1-concepts and early trends. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
17(1), 12-19.
Lomas, L. (1999). The culture and quality of higher education institutions: examining the links.
Quality Assurance in Education, 7(1), 30-34.
Louis, K. S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2011). Principals as cultural leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 52-56.
Loukkola, T., & Zhang, T. (2010). Examining Quality Culture: Part 1 - Quality Assurance Processes in
Higher Education: European University Association.
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on
student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84.
Maehr, M. L., & Fyans, L. J. (1990). School culture, motivation, and achievement: US Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information
Center.
Mallak, L. A., Lyth, D. M., Olson, S. D., Ulshafer, S. M., & Sardone, F. J. (2003). Diagnosing culture
in health-care organizations using critical incidents. International Journal of Health Care Quality
Assurance, 16(4), 180-190.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Heck, R. H. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and
testing a model. Organization science, 4(2), 209-225.
Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations : three perspectives: Oxford University Press.
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture : mapping the terrain. Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London:
Sage.
Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1988). Organizational cultures and the denial, channeling and
acknowledgement of ambiguity. In L. R. Pondy, R. J. Boland & H. Thomas (Eds.), Managing
ambiguity and change (Vol. 93, pp. 126). New York: John Wiley.
Maslowski, R. (2001). School culture and school performance: an explorative study into the
organizational culture of secondary schools and their effects. Enschede: Twente University Press.
Maslowski, R. (2005). A review of inventories for diagnosing school culture. Journal of Educational
Administration, 44(1), 6-35.
Maull, R., Brown, P., & Cliffe, R. (2001). Organisational culture and quality improvement.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(3), 302-326.
Maxwell, T. W., & Thomas, A. R. (1991). School climate and school culture. Journal of Educational
Administration, 29(2).
Metz, M. H. (1990). How social class differences shape teachers' work. The contexts of teaching in
secondary schools, 40-107.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
34
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state.
American journal of sociology, 103(1), 144-181.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340.
Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural Change. An Integration of three different views. Journal
of management studies, 24(6), 623-647.
Milisiunaite, I., Adomaitiene, R., & Galginaitis, J. (2009). Quality Management as a Tool for Quality
Culture Embedment: Vilnius University Approach. Paper presented at the 31st Annual EAIR Forum,
Vilnius, Lithuania.
Milton, P. M. (2011). Educational Leadership and School Culture: A Study of the Perceptions of
Effective Leadership. (Dissertation), Clemson University.
Morgan, G., Gregory, F., & Roach, C. (1997). Images of organization.
Morrow, P. C. (1997). The measurement of TQM principles and work‐related outcomes. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 363-376.
Müthing, K. (2010). Organisationskultur im schulischen Kontext - theoriebasierter Einsatz eines
Instrumentes zur Erfassung der Schulkultur. (Dr.phil), TU Dortmund, Bochum.
Naor, M., Goldstein, S. M., Linderman, K. W., & Schroeder, R. G. (2008). The Role of Culture as
Driver of Quality Management and Performance: Infrastructure Versus Core Quality Practices*.
Decision Sciences, 39(4), 671-702.
Newton, J. (2000). Feeding the Beast or Improving Quality?: academics' perceptions of quality
assurance and quality monitoring. Quality in Higher Education, 6(2), 153-163.
Ouchi, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1985). Organizational Culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 457483.
Owlia, M. S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1996). A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher
education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(2), 12-20.
Pace, C. R., & Stern, G. G. (1958). An approach to the measurement of psychological characteristics
of college environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(5), 269.
Pol, M., Hlouskova, L., Novotny, P., Vaclavikova, E., & Zounek, J. (2005). School Culture as an
Object of Research. Wydawnictwo Adam Marszalek.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical
study. Strategic management journal, 16(1), 15-37.
Prajogo, D. I., & McDermott, C. M. (2005). The relationship between total quality management
practices and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 25(11), 1101-1122.
PREP Centre. Motivation and School Culture Survey. In P. C.-I. D. 287 (Ed.).
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement (Vol. 18). New York:
Pitman.
Prosser, J. (1999). The evolution of school culture research. In J. Prosser (Ed.), School culture (pp.
1-14): Sage Publications Ltd.
Prosser, J. (2007). Visual methods and the visual culture of schools. Visual Studies, 22(1), 13-30.
Rad, A. M. M. (2006). The impact of organizational culture on the successful implementation of
total quality management. The TQM Magazine, 18(6), 606-625.
Reyes, P. (1990). Individual work orientation and teacher outcomes. The Journal of Educational
Research, 327-335.
Reynolds, P. D. (1986). Organizational culture as related to industry, position and performance: a
preliminary report [1]. Journal of management studies, 23(3), 333-345.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
35
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Rigsby, K. L. (1995). Total quality management and the culture of a model elementary school: a
case study. University of South Florida.
Roby, D. E. (2011). Teachers Leaders impacting School Culture. Education, 131(4).
Sackmann, S. A. (2011). Culture and performance. In N. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom & M. Peterson
(Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd. ed., pp. 188-224). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications. .
Samson, D., & Terziovski, M. (1999). The relationship between total quality management practices
and operational performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 393-409.
Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting: "The culture of the school and the problem of change": Allyn and
Bacon Boston.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American psychologist, 45(2), 109.
Schein, E. H. (2010/1985). Organizational culture and leadership (3 ed. Vol. 2). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schoen, L. T., & Teddlie, C. (2008). A new model of school culture: a response to a call for
conceptual clarity. School Effectiveness and School Improvement - An International Journal of
Research, Policy and Practice, 19(2), 129-153.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2003). The quantitative measurement of
organizational culture in health care: a review of the available instruments. Health services
research, 38(3), 923-945.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Marshall, M., & Davies, H. (2003). Does organisational culture influence
health care performance? A review of the evidence. J Health Serv Res Policy, 8(2), 105-117. doi:
10.1258/135581903321466085
Sitkin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). Distinguishing control from learning in total
quality management: a contingency perspective. Academy of management Review, 19(3), 537-564.
Smart, J. C., & John, E. P. S. (1996). Organizational culture and effectiveness in higher education:
A test of the culture typ•and strong culture hypotheses. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
18(3), 219-241.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 339-358.
Smith, A. L. (2006). A study of the relationship between school culture and standardized test
scores. (Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership), University of Phoenix, Phoenix.
Sousa, R., & Voss, C. A. (2002). Quality management re-visited: a reflective review and agenda for
future research. Journal of Operations Management, 20(1), 91-109.
Spencer, B. A. (1994). Models of organization and total quality management: a comparison and
critical evaluation. Academy of management Review, 19(3), 446-471.
Stamatelos, G. M., & Stamatelos, A. M. (2009). The role of engineering laboratories in the
establishment of a quality culture in higher education in Greece. European Journal of Engineering
Education, 34(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1080/03043790802699115
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and society, 22(4),
487-511.
Svensson, M., & Klefsjo, B. (2010). Experiences from creating a quality culture for continuous
improvements in the Swedish school sector by using self-assessments. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 11(4), 10. doi: 10.1080/09544120050008246
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American sociological review, 273286.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
36
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Taras,
V.
(2013).
Catalogue
of
Instruments
http://vtaras.com/files/Culture_Survey_Catalogue.pdf.
for
Measuring
Culture.
Taras, V., Rowney, J., & Steel, P. (2009). Half a century of measuring culture: Review of
approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying
culture. Journal of International Management, 15(4), 357-373.
Tata, J., & Prasad, S. (1998). Cultural and structural constraints on total quality management
implementation. Total Quality Management, 9(8), 703-710.
Terhart, E. (1994). SchulKultur. Hintergründe, Formen und Implikationen eines schulpädagogischen
Trends. . Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 40(5 ), 685-699.
Terhart, E. (2013). Teacher resistance against school reform: reflecting an inconvenient truth.
School Leadership & Management, 33(5), 486-500. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2013.793494
Thompson, K. R. (1999). Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment. Organizational
Dynamics, 26(3), 62-74.
Trivellas, P., & Dargenidou, D. (2009). Organisational culture, job satisfaction and higher education
service quality: The case of Technological Educational Institute of Larissa. The TQM Journal, 21(4),
382-399.
Tsang, K. K. (2009). Three approaches to understanding and investigating the concept of school
culture and school culture phenomena: implications to school improvement and school
effectiveness. City University of Hong Kong.
Van der Westhuizen, P. C., Mosoge, M. J., Swanepoel, L. H., & Coetsee, L. D. (2005). Organizational
culture and academic achievement in secondary schools. Education and Urban Society, 38(1), 89109.
Van Houtte, M. (2005). Climate or culture? A plea for conceptual clarity in school effectiveness
research. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 71-89.
Vidal, J. (2003). Quality assurance, legal reforms and the European Higher Education Area in Spain.
European Journal of Education, 38(3), 301-313.
Waugh, R. F. (2002). Academic staff perceptions of administrative quality at universities. Journal of
Educational Administration, 40(2), 172-188.
Wilderom, C. P. M., Glunk, U., & Maslowski, R. (2000). Organizational culture as a predictor of
organizational performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. Wilderom & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook
of Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 193-209). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture
and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 468-481.
Xenikou, A., & Furnham, A. (1996). A correlational and factor analytic study of four questionnaire
measures of organizational culture. Human Relations, 49(3), 349-371.
Yauch, C. A., & Steudel, H. J. (2003). Complementary use of qualitative and quantitative cultural
assessment methods. Organizational Research Methods, 6(4), 465-481.
Yeung, A., Brockbank, J. W., & Ulrich, D. (1991). Organizational culture and human resource
practices: an empirical assessment. Research in organizational change and development,
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Yong, K. T., & Pheng, L. S. (2008). Organizational culture and TQM implementation in construction
firms in Singapore. Construction Management and Economics, 26(3), 237-248.
Yorke, M. (2000). Developing a quality culture in higher education. Tertiary Education &
Management, 6(1), 19-36.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
37
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Zeitz, G., Johannesson, R., & Ritchie, J. E. (1997). An employee survey measuring total quality
management practices and culture development and validation. Group & Organization Management,
22(4), 414-444.
Zhu, C., Devos, G., & Li, Y. (2011). Teacher perceptions of school culture and their organizational
commitment and well-being in a Chinese school. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(2), 319-328.
Zu, X., Robbins, T. L., & Fredendall, L. D. (2010). Mapping the critical liks between organizational
culture and TQM/Six Sigma practices. International Journal of Production Economics, 123, 21. doi:
10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.07.009
Zulu, N., Murray, L., & Strydom, J. F. (2004). Quality, culture and change. Quality in Higher
Education, 10(3), 207-217. doi: 10.1080/1353832042000299496
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
38
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
7 ANNEXES
Diagram 2: The causal direction of the relationship between Quality Management and
Organisational Culture
e.g. Chang & Wiebe 1996,
Zeitz et al. 1997, Dellana &
Hauser 1999
Organisational
Culture
(change)
affects
brings
Quality
Management
(implementation)
(e.g. Kotter & Heskett, 1992;
Lam, Poon, & Chin, 2008;
Lewis, 1996)
Source: Author
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
39
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Diagram 3: An elaborated model of the relation of school culture, quality culture and practice and
performance
Source: Author, ideas taken from Naor et al. (2008), Schein (1990), (Detert et al. (2001))
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
40
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Diagram 4: The ‘unclear boundary’ between Quality (Management) Culture and Organisational
Culture and their ‘set relations’
Source: Authors
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
41
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Diagram 5: Culture and TQM – Areas of overlap
Source: Gallear, D., & Ghobadian, A. (2004)
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
42
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Diagram 6: Ways of locating the school culture we speak about
Source: Author
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
43
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Table 6: Functions of school culture
Tsang (2009, p. 8) with reference to Smircich
(1983), (Cheng (1993); Hoy, Miskel, & Nelson,
1978) and Burrello and Reitzug (1993)
Deal and Peterson (2010, p. 12ff.) providing a
number of references for each function listed
 conveying a sense of identity for school
members;
 Culture foster school effectiveness and
productivity (Leithwood & Louis, 1998)
 facilitating the generation of school
commitment;
 Culture improves collegiality, collaboration,
communications, and problem solving
practices (Sharon D Kruse & Louis, 1997)
 enhancing social system stability;
 Culture promotes innovations and school
improvement (Deal & Peterson, 1990)
 serving as a sense-making device that can
guide and shape the behavior and
performance of school members;
 Culture builds commitment and kindles
motivations (Schein, 2010/1985)
 creating a boundary-defining function and
distinguishing among organisations;
 Culture amplifies the energy and vitality of
school staff, students, and community
 binding the organisation together;
 Culture focuses attention on what is
important and values (Deal & Kennedy, 1982)
 providing appropriate standards for
 behaviors; and
 serving as a soft control system to
 organisational members.
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
44
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
Table 7: Overview on Instruments to explore school culture
(A= Instrument/Items available; B= Information about the development and testing available)
Method
School Culture Survey (Edwards, 1996; Saphier &
King, 1985; Schweiker-Marra, 1995)
Developmen
t
Approach
quantitativ 4 point Likert
e
scale, 24
items
Dimensional
quantitativ 5 point Likert
e
scale, 60
items
Typological
Purpo
Diagno
Questionnaire on the Cultures of Organisations
(Handy & Aitken, 1986)
School Work Culture Profile (Snyder, 1988)
Organisational Cultural Assessment Inventory
(Steinhoff & Owens, 1989)
Professional Culture Questionnaire for Primary
Schools (Staessens, 1990, 1991b)
Quantitati
ve
4 point Likert
scale, 28
items
quantitativ
e
5 point
Lickert,
scale, 10
items
empirical
Typological
Diag
Onedimensional
Diag
Onedimensional
Form
School Culture Assessment Questionnaire and
School District Culture Assessment Questionnaire
(Sashkin, 1990)
School Culture Survey (Maehr & Fyans, 1990)
Organisational Value Orientation Questionnaire,
Shaw and Reyes’ (1992)
School-classroom culture audit (Phillips, 1993)
Organisational Ideology Questionnaire Cheng’s
(1993, 1996)
quantitativ
e
School Culture Scale (Higgins-D'Alessandro, 1995;
Higgins-D'Alessandro & Sadh, 1998)
quantitativ
e
25 items
conceptual
Diag
School Culture Inventory (Jones, 1996)
Images of School through Metaphor questionnaire
(Grady, Fisher, & Fraser, 1996)
School Cultural Elements Questionnaire (R. F.
Cavanagh & Dellar, 1996; Robert F. Cavanagh &
Dellar, 1997(Tsang, 2009))
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
quantitativ 5 point Likert
e
Scale, 42
items
45
Dimensional
Fellinger/ Markowitsch
format
Table 7 contd.
Method
Questionnaire for measuring organisational
culture in primary schools (Houtveen et al., 1996)
quantitative 6 point Likert
scale, 123
items
School Values Inventory (Pang, 1996)
quantitative 7 point Likert
scale, 61
items
Assoziations- und Inhaltsanalyse von Schulkultur
(Hejj, 1997)
qualitative
/quantitativ
e
School Culture Survey (Gruenert and Valentines,
1998)
quantitative 5 point Likert
5 scale, 60
items
Developmen
t
conceptual
Approach
Purpo
Dimensional
Dimensional
conceptual
& emprical
dimensional
forma
School Culture Typology offered by the West
Virginia Department of Education (based on
Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) and Deal and
Peterson (1999)
School Culture Inventory (Maslowski, 2001)
School Culture Audit (Wagner & Masden-Copas,
2002)
qualitative
/quantitativ
e
School Quality Management Culture Survey SQMCS
(Detert et al., 2003)
quantitative
diagn
conceptual
& empirical
dimensional
diagn
conceptual
dimensional
forma
Demokratische Schulkultur (Diedrich, 2007)
Quick School Culture Inventory (Sharon D. Kruse & quantitative 4 point Likert
Seashore Louis, 2009, p. 68)
scale, 19
items
School Culture Review (Roby, 2011)
quantitative
.
(Cheng, 2012)
Measuring School Culture Survey (Ney, 2013)
Is there such a thing as school quality culture
46
Fellinger/ Markowitsch

- Chili Con Pepper

Gross salary (RAL) in a range of Euro 45.000

Book Launch Invitation

MCS PD Lvl 8 TRS Manager RCaTS

Anzeige - Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie

John F. Louisot

Master Course „Natural Experiments in History“ Der Kurs “Natural

Erleben Sie GerMANY - Deutsche Vertretungen in Australien

Board of Directors Meeting 30 Report

HR People and Strategy Congress